DOCUMENTS

2023-08-08 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Tuesday, 8 August 2023

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

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 12:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. BILLS 1 BILLS Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill 2023, Inspector-General of Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 1

Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill 2023

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

Second Reading 1 12:02 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria The Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill 2023 is an important step in addressing systemic issues in the aged-care sector. I'm proud to be part of a Labor government that is leading its implementation. This office will have strong investigative powers and will be able to review the implementation of the royal commission's recommendations, which will be integral to undoing the negligence faced by the sector under the previous government. For too long, this sector has been chronically underfunded and overwhelmed by demand. For too long, people have suffered substandard care. For too long, older Australians have been robbed of dignified and meaningful living. Let's not forget the consequences of this neglect on some of Australia's most vulnerable during the height of the pandemic. In 2020, some three-quarters of deaths from COVID-19 in Australia were in aged-care homes. Under the opposition, Australia had one of the highest rates of death in residential care in the world. For nearly a decade, those opposite have failed to appropriately care for and value older Australians. The need for a strong, resilient aged-care system could not be more urgent. Right now, some 80 per cent of Australians use an aged-care program at some stage before their death. Within a decade, our nation will have more people aged over 65 than under 18. More significantly, by 2050 about 3½ million Australians will need access to aged-care services like residential aged care each year. This bill and the creation of the Inspector-General of Aged Care office would not only play a pivotal role in righting some of the wrongs under the previous government but will also enable us to build a more resilient system for the future. It would drive improvement across the aged-care system by monitoring the government's administration of the aged-care system, calling out systemic issues, recommending improvements and providing a much-needed increase in accountability and transparency through reporting to parliament, including on the progress of implementation of the recommendations made by the royal commission. I'm happy to support this bill, which is one of the many investments that our government is making into the aged-care sector. We're delivering a record 15 per cent pay increase for aged-care workers across Australia, establishing a new aged-care task force to review aged-care funding arrangements and develop options to make the system fair and equitable for all Australians, putting older people at the centre of residential aged care, assigning care places to people, introducing new initiatives for GPs to provide care to residents through MyMedicare, improving access to high-quality aged care for First Nations elders and boosting provider support and worker training to build care capacity. This final initiative includes $2.547 million in funding to establish a peak body for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander aged care and ageing. This is in response to one of the other key findings of the royal commission into aged care, which is that the current system is largely failing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The final report notes: After a lifetime of experiencing marginalisation, discrimination, disadvantage and racism, the Elders and the older people descendent of the first inhabitants of this ancient land deserve better than this. I couldn't agree more. It is a sad indictment of the system that the care needs of our ageing First Peoples are not being met. Older Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are significantly underrepresented in residential aged-care services, at under one per cent, but overrepresented in Commonwealth Home Support Program services and level 2 home-care packages. These trends are worrying, considering older Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples experience at least twice the burden of disease of other Australians. First Nations peoples faces social, economic and cultural barriers which prevent access to a mainstream aged-care services. These issues with access are made worse by our elders' additional vulnerability from higher rates of disability, comorbidities, homelessness and dementia. This also leads to a majority of our elders having a strong preference for culturally appropriate aged and disability care provided by Aboriginal services. Recently I met with James Atkinson, CEO of the Aboriginal Community Elders Service, on this very subject. ACES is a not-for-profit Aboriginal community controlled organisation based in East Brunswick in Victoria. It provides residential aged-care facilities, programs and innovative and flexible, planned activity group programs which are culturally appropriate for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander elders. James and I spoke about the diverse indicators of a culturally appropriate service, such as having buildings suited to cultural activities and ceremonies, providing access to bushland gardens, including the local community in aged-care planning, respecting cultural traditions such as men's and women's business, employing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to provide care, which is particularly important as close to 10 per cent of Indigenous peoples in residential aged care speak preferred languages other than English, including First Nations languages. Our communities know our issues. They have grown up in these areas for thousands of years. These are their homes and culture, and they should be genuinely engaged to provide culturally appropriate care. Given the anticipated increase in the demand for aged-care services from First Nations peoples, there is an urgent need for culturally safe services, particularly in regional settings. In response to this need, the Albanese government recently launched the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Ageing and Aged Care Council, NATSIAACC. The council will lead reform priorities for older Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, embedding Closing the Gap targets in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander aged care. It will ensure access to support and care that is culturally safe, trauma aware and healing informed and that recognises the importance of our personal connections to community and country. It will develop ageing and aged-care policies which respond effectively to the needs of our elders and will facilitate access and participation at equitable rates. It will advocate for improvements in the ageing and aged-care sector which will benefit Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander providers and elders. To sum it up, it will play a key part in closing the gap in health outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Increasing health outcomes and life expectancy is not only a health issue but also a human rights issue. It is central to the empowerment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The creation of entities like the Inspector-General of Aged Care and the council reinforces this government's commitment to ensuring elders and older Australians can live a meaningful life with dignity and respect. Really it is about treating others how we want ourselves and our loved ones to be supported as we age. Aged-care service providers have a duty to provide high-quality and safe care in a compassionate way that maintains the wellbeing of older people. For far too long, the system has neglected this duty and it has been left to the whims of the market, which has failed to produce good outcomes in the residential aged-care sector. But our government is committed to transforming the system from the mess that we've inherited, whether it is by boosting the aged-care workforce, increasing transparency or increasing the quality of care for those who need it most. We're committed to independent monitoring, investigations and reporting of the aged-care system under the Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill. Finally, we're committed to ensuring that elders ageing on country are front and centre of the government's response to the royal commission's recommendations. For too long, the aged-care sector and the workers who are integral to it were neglected and left behind by the former government. We have sought to end the crisis, and, since coming to government, we have not wasted a day. The Albanese government recognises your commitment to our country's most vulnerable, and we make a commitment to you that you won't be left behind again. Thank you for all that you do. 12:11 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I rise to make my contribution on the Inspector-General of Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023. The government's approach to this piece of legislation is symptomatic of their approach to the reform of the aged-care system since they came to government, because this piece of legislation should have been passed by now. The Inspector-General of Aged Care should have been a formal position by now, not an acting position as it currently is. It was supposed to come into force on 1 July. The bottom line with this legislation, as has been the case with so much of what Labor claims to have done since the last election, is that the reform process has effectively been delayed. It's way behind. They've kicked the can down the road a number of times, and I'll deal with that further in my presentation. Interestingly, one of the things that the Inspector-General of Aged Care will be required to do is to undertake at least two reviews of the Commonwealth's implementation of the recommendations of the royal commission, and yet their process to put this office in place itself is behind schedule. As I said, it is symptomatic of the way that the government has operated, despite its claims. I might just respond to Senator Stewart's comments with respect to the very, very tragic circumstances of mortalities through COVID. There were 685 deaths in 2020, when we were still learning about COVID and the impacts that it might have on our communities, before we had vaccinations. In 2021 there were 231 deaths, while we were rolling out the vaccines. In our final period of government, in 2022, up to the March 2022 election, there were 1,499 deaths, tragically, as omicron took hold through the community and as the community opened up. But, in the next eight months, there were 2,652 deaths. There were more deaths under Labor—the deadliest winter of COVID ever—than there were in the 2½ years previously of the coalition. So I'm not going to be lectured by the Labor Party in respect of the management of aged care and COVID, particularly when they're demonstrating the record that they have to date. When I think of the effort that went into keeping aged-care providers in local communities open during the pandemic, it's heartbreaking to see them falling over now due to Labor's ill-advised, politically motivated policy to bring forward 24/7 nurses, ahead of the recommendations of the royal commission. It's been over 30 providers already. The warning signs were already present in the pressures on providers like Southern Cross aged care at Bombala, which closed due to a shortage of nurses. I notice that Labor have done nothing, in the 12-plus months they've been in government, to restore that service in the Southern Highlands, despite the politics they played in the lead-up to the 2022 election. It seems quite trite to say, 'We warned you,' but we did. The department said at the time how many nurses were required. Labor played the issue hard in the lead-up to the election, demanding action, but have now fallen silent as providers across the country fall to the same problem. This time, it's of Labor's own making. It's also preposterous that there is over $500 million in claims still outstanding for COVID outbreaks. Again, Labor made a lot of noise in the lead-up to the election, but, again, they haven't lived up to their rhetoric. Two years after the coalition presented the most comprehensive and significant funding response to a royal commission in history—at the time it was $17.7 billion, and by the election it was $19.1 billion—Labor still have not responded to a single recommendation of the royal commission. What they're effectively doing is implementing the decisions and the recommendation responses of the coalition. They want to criticise us, but, at the same time, they're implementing the recommendations and the responses to the royal commission that we tabled in May 2021, just a few months after the royal commission reported. As I've said, tragically more senior Australians died from COVID in the first eight months of the Albanese government than in the whole 2½ years of the pandemic under the coalition, when we were still learning about the virus and before we had access to vaccines and antivirals. Outrageously, the fully vaccinated rate for senior Australians in aged care today has fallen to just 50 per cent. I recall Labor senators, in Senate inquiries and in this place, demanding to know the vaccination rate when it was in the high 80s and low 90s. Today, it's just 50 per cent. That wouldn't be so bad, except for the fact that Labor, in its first budget, scrapped a program which would have provided a nurse vaccinator in every aged-care facility across the country and paid for the training and the time off. That would have facilitated speedy vaccinations not just for COVID but also for flu and perhaps for RSV when the vaccine for that becomes available. Every aged-care facility in the country would have had at least one trained nurse vaccinator. Labor scrapped that program in its first budget. That was $50 million for aged care , for nurse vaccinators across the country, taken out of the budget. And they want to lecture the coalition about aged care! The budget announced funding for a pay rise for aged-care workers. That is very much deserved, welcome and in fact essential for the sector. Let's not forget, though, that Labor tried to delay this pay rise. After campaigning alongside the unions for an immediate 25 per cent pay increase, Labor delayed the consideration of the Fair Work Commission, then applied to delay the implementation of the policy to suit their budget. Labor's priority wasn't their promise to aged-care workers; they tried to delay their pay rise. On the other hand, Labor do deserve credit for the additional funding to develop the IT systems to support the reform process in addition to the funding appropriations in the March coalition budget. This is a very welcome move. Quite simply, without the development and effective implementation of IT systems, the reform process will not work. The data and information to drive the reform process and improve the operation of the sector won't be available and the reform will fail. However, a closer look at the reform of aged care after a year of Labor shows an incapacity to make decisions and a net delay to the reform process, as I have indicated and as is demonstrated by this piece of legislation that should have been passed by now. The only real action since the election has been to pass legislation effectively proposed by the coalition before the election and activate decisions that had already been made. This government is really having problems making decisions. The star-rating system reporting on food, quarterly financial reporting, the new payment system and the independent pricing authority were all well on the way before the change of government. Before the election, Labor, without any proposed amendments of their own, opposed reforming legislation on the basis of their now defunct 24/7 nurse promise and then ran it through the parliament after the election, largely in the same form but with a few detrimental changes. The first of those was the decision to remove governance requirements for Indigenous aged-care providers. During COVID and out of the royal commission we saw that one of the most significant indicators of the quality of care came back to governance. It showed up in all types of providers. It didn't matter if they were community, faith based, private or corporate; if there was a failure of governance, quality suffered. The question now is simple: why should Indigenous Australians be subject to a lesser level of governance than anyone else? Why is it in relation to Indigenous matters that we appear to be prepared to just look the other way? It genuinely does not make sense. Next we saw the decision to delay the implementation of registration for workforce. Clearly driven by the unions and as payback for the union campaigns before the election, this decision not only delays an important reform but also imposes additional costs on the sector and, consequently, on taxpayers. The coalition proposal was to extend the existing workforce registration system used for the NDIS into aged care. It made sense given that approximately 30 per cent of home-care providers and a similar number of residential care providers also provide services to those on the NDIS. We were picking up one system that is already there, that has already worked and that people are already registered to. One form of registration across the care sector made sense, reduced red tape and reduced cost. If there's a problem with the NDIS system, fix it. Don't create the cost, time, complexity and delay of a second system. Labor like to count off the recommendations of the royal commission but haven't really made any decisions on any of them. Reform of the home-care system has been pushed back beyond the next election. Workforce registration has been kicked down the road, as we have discussed. Just imagine the ruckus there would have been if it had have been us that had delayed these particular decisions. Then there's the completely baffling decision to ask the aged-care sector to decide how much of an individual's income should be contributed to their own care. This is not a decision for the aged-care sector, particularly not for aged-care providers. Their most common refrain over recent years has been, 'Things have never been better in regard to aged care; just give us more money.' Of course they are going to want more money. The department has some very valuable data to support the decision that this is a job for government, not one to be subcontracted off to aged-care providers and the aged-care sector. On what basis should the aged-care industry or aged-care providers be deciding what proportion of someone's income should get spent on the provision of care? That's a job for government. If the government can't get that process right, what hope is there for the rest of the reform process? Just get on with it. The task of reforming the aged-care sector was always going to be difficult and take time. We proposed five pillars over five years. Labor can't afford to lose momentum and start kicking the can down the road, as they've done so far so many times, and as, as the royal commission said, has happened in previous reviews. The net effect of Labor coming into office has been to delay the progress of much-needed reform of the aged-care sector—and I don't think any of us disagree in respect of that—basically, because they hadn't done the hard policy work before the election and now don't understand how to make the reforms after the election. Labor said they wanted to put the care back into aged care, but now they're in government we hardly hear from them. They make data hard to find. And, to be frank, you really wonder how much they do care. Simply by looking at this piece of legislation, you see: the fact that they couldn't get the Inspector-General of Aged Care legislation passed in time for it to come into place by 1 July this year demonstrates how tardy they've been. We all agree on the importance of the recommendations of the royal commission. That's why the coalition, as I've said in my presentation, brought down the most comprehensive and significant response to a royal commission in history. We can't afford for Labor to delay the process of the reforms. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Unless any other member wishes to make a contribution on the second reading, I'll call the minister to sum up the debate. 12:26 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I thank the members for their contributions and I commend these bills to the Senate. The DEPUTY PRESI 287062 I put the question that the second reading amendment as moved by Senator Rice, standing in the name of Senator Thorpe, be agreed to. Question agreed to. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Now there is a second reading amendment that has been foreshadowed by Senator Ruston. 12:27 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I move the second reading amendment on sheet 2052: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Inspector-General of Aged Care to consider the current workforce constraints facing the aged care sector as a priority". The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Ruston be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:32]
(The President—Senator Lines)

40 AYES Antic, A. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 19 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Gallagher, K. R. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. (Teller) Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Original question, as amended, agreed to.
Bills read a second time.

STATEMENTS 6 STATEMENTS Parliamentary Standards 6 12:36 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria by leave—On Thursday 22 June I used a term that was unparliamentary, and I now withdraw that remark. BILLS 6 BILLS Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill 2023, Inspector-General of Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 6

Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill 2023

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

In Committee 6 12:37 Sen 122087 Northern Territory ator McCARTHY (—) (): I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to these bills. The addendum responds to matters raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and the Community Affairs Legislation Committee. 12:38 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria by leave—I move amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 1934 together: (1) Clause 8, page 10 (lines 12 to 14), omit the paragraph beginning "The Inspector-General must also conduct", substitute: The Inspector-General must conduct 2 reviews of the Commonwealth's implementation of the recommendations of the Aged Care Royal Commission. Before conducting those reviews, the Inspector-General must publish 2 reports on the progress made by the Commonwealth towards implementing those recommendations. (2) Clause 18, page 16 (after line 32), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) The Inspector-General must, as soon as practicable after giving the notice, cause the notice to be published on the Inspector-General's website unless the Inspector-General is satisfied that doing so would adversely affect: (a) the proper conduct of the review or any other review under section 17; or (b) the preparation of a draft review report or final review report. (3) Clause 18, page 17 (line 4), after "any", insert "other". (4) Clause 29, page 26 (lines 6 to 15), omit subclauses (1) and (2), substitute: (1) The Inspector-General must prepare 2 reports on the progress made by the Commonwealth towards implementing the recommendations of the Aged Care Royal Commission, which must set out the measures and actions in response to each recommendation taken by the Commonwealth before: (a) for the first report—1 January 2024; and (b) for the second report—1 January 2025. (2) The Inspector-General may also prepare a report on any other matter relating to the Inspector-General's functions. (2A) A report under this section: (a) must be published on the Inspector-General's website; and (b) must be given to the Minister: (i) for the first report under subsection (1)—on or before 1 June 2024; and (ii) for the second report under subsection (1)—on or before 1 June 2025; and (iii) for a report under subsection (2)—as soon as practicable; and (c) may be given to any other person who, in the Inspector-General's opinion, has a special interest in a matter to which the report relates. (5) Clause 72, page 58 (line 5), omit "subsection 29(2)", substitute "subsection 29(2A)". These amendments are regarding additional reporting and more regular reporting by the inspector-general on the implementation of the royal commission recommendations. We're doing this because we feel that there is an opportunity, in setting up this inspector general post, to make sure that regular reporting occurs. There is a need for more regular reporting than is currently in the legislation. As the Older Persons Advocacy Network outlined in their submission: OPAN recommends the Inspector-General should be empowered to make additional reports to Parliament where recommendations are not acted upon or progress against Royal Commission recommendations is impeded or stalled through the actions or inactions of Commonwealth agencies. Given the size of the disparity between the current and future aged-care systems identified by the royal commission, OPAN recommends these reports should be like Closing the gap reports—that is, they should identify priority reforms, set targets, report progress and track implementation, including progress towards older people having a genuine say in their care and the design and delivery of aged-care policies, programs and services. We know the royal commission into aged care was a watershed moment and a landmark report. There are recommendations that it's so important are acted upon and it's so important that we track progress towards their implementation. We put forward a number of recommendations to address this in our additional comments to the community affairs committee's inquiry into this legislation. And while the government hasn't adopted the full range of our recommendations, we understand that they have been willing to adopt an amendment to the legislation on this point. The amendment that I'm moving today on sheet 1934 is going to require reviews in 2024 and 2025 of the royal commission recommendations by the inspector-general. In understanding that the government is supporting this amendment, I do particularly want to thank the aged-care minister and her office for the collaborative approach that they've taken in discussions on this piece of legislation. This is an important piece of legislation. We think these amendments improve it just one bit more, and we're glad to see it improved and passed. 12:41 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Noting the significant proportion of the 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 the implementation of those recommendations. We believe that it should occur annually and be tabled in parliament up until that five-year comprehensive review and reporting to the implementation, which is due in March 2026. The coalition is supporting the amendment, as moved by the Australian Greens, as we believe it is important that the Department of Health and Aged Care and the government are held accountable for the changes they make through this independent body. 12:41 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory While the inspector-general was established as a recommendation of the royal commission, it's valuable oversight function should outlast the implementation of the royal commission recommendations. Under the current bill the inspector-general must conduct two reviews to evaluate the implementation of the royal commission recommendations, and these reports will be due by 1 March 2026 and 1 March 2031 respectively. The inspector-general also has the discretion to report more frequently if they believe it's necessary and, as appropriate, can discontinue reporting when it is no longer necessary to continue reporting on these recommendations. It was the intention of the Minister for Aged Care to direct the Inspector-General of Aged Care using powers provided under section 17 to provide such reports. However, the Albanese government values transparency and accountability and recognises Senator Rice's amendment to legislate a requirement for an annual review to be given to the minister and published on the inspector-general's website by 1 June 2024 and 1 June 2025. The government supports this amendment. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 296215 The question is that Australian Greens amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 1934, moved together by Senator Rice, be agreed to. Question agreed to. 12:43 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland As I flagged in my second reading debate contribution, I have some clarification questions on this bill and the inspector-general more broadly and how aged-care services are being regulated. Just to remind the minister, who may not have been here at the time, I've had the very sad news in my area in Central Queensland in recent months of an aged-care home—the Mount Morgan aged-care home—about to close. I've had people at that home contact me. They're understandably very upset at the situation. That aged-care home is apparently shutting because they can't receive a long-term exemption from the government's 24/7 registered nurse requirements. As I outlined in my speech in the second reading debate, there is just no way the town of Mount Morgan is going to get enough registered nurses to maintain 24-hour, seven-day-a-week staffing. It's a town of 2,500 people. I have written to the minister, but I would just like to ask: is the government considering loosening some of the strict conditions for exemptions? It is now my understanding that the exemptions only last for a year, so that's not a long-term solution for Mount Morgan. As I say, it doesn't matter how long it takes; you're not going to get the four, five or maybe six registered nurses necessary to fill a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week requirement. So what is the government doing to respond to cases like that of Mount Morgan? I believe there are at least 29 other aged-care homes around the country that might be in a similar position. This is having a real-world impact on people's lives. Just to give one short example, Marlene Sealey, who has contacted my office, is an 83-year-old woman who visits her husband, who has dementia, six times a week at the moment in Mount Morgan. But, because of this strict decision of the government, her husband will have to move 30 or 40 minutes away to Rockhampton, and of course Mrs Sealey, who has no drivers licence, will not be able to visit him as often in the last few years of his life. So I just wonder: is the government actually considering these heartfelt individual cases in its rollout of this requirement, and can it give some hope to people like Mrs Sealey that there will be a more liberal interpretation for small country towns like Mount Morgan, which just aren't going to be able to meet the strict requirement as laid out at the moment? 12:46 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Thank you, Senator, for bringing that to my attention. I've just sought some advice on it, and I am aware that the minister is across your letter and will no doubt deal with it in the most sensitive of ways—for the family involved as well. I am advised that Mount Morgan were eligible for exemption but declined and have been offered workforce assistance but also declined. But I do understand that there will be further interaction between you and the minister. 12:47 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland Thank you. I really appreciate that information and especially the minister's attention to the issue. Just briefly, I will more clearly outline this. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I said in my speech that I might be wrong on a lot of these things; I don't pretend to be an expert on aged care. But my understanding is that the current exemptions that the government has can only go for 12 months, so Mount Morgan could only have got a 12-month exemption. Is that the case? If it is the case, that, to me, is not a long-term solution for a town like Mount Morgan, for the reasons I've outlined. There is just no way it's going to be able to fill a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week registered nurse requirement, no matter how long you give it. The question I'm flagging is: is there consideration of giving more long-term exemptions? I recognise that might mean greater oversight of those places, but I would love to hear that there's a determined effort to keep these homes open and to work with a small country town like Mount Morgan on what we can do to keep this home open and keep people like Mrs Sealey close to their loved ones, even if it means being a little flexible on the strict requirements that the government currently outlines. 12:48 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I am advised that they can reapply in 12 months time, but I'm also aware that this is an incredibly sad situation, Senator, and I am conscious that the minister does want to work closely with you on it. 12:48 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland Thank you for that. I'll leave it here. I'll just make a quick comment. I appreciate that. I would just say, though, that requiring a centre to apply every 12 months for an exemption probably isn't giving them the sort of long-term certainty they would need to maintain continuity of service, to invest in their infrastructure and to give employees, if nothing else, the certainty of a job in the long term, to keep staff around. I appreciate the attention that has been provided to this, but I would humbly suggest that there may be a need to think of a longer-term exemption for categories like this in smaller towns, keeping in mind that there are probably other ways we can make sure that standards are maintained, that oversight is provided and that we don't unnecessarily close centres which are otherwise providing high levels of service. To my understanding, the Mount Morgan aged-care home has a high degree of community satisfaction, and there's no need for these requirements to be imposed on it. Thank you, Minister. I thank the Senate for its time. 12:49 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Following on from the questioning from Senator Canavan, I am keen to understand what your understanding is for the reason why Mount Morgan has chosen to close? You said they were able to get an exemption and they chose not to; they were given workforce support and they chose not to. But was that the stated reason they chose to close? 12:50 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I am advised that they made that decision. Obviously, I would need to find out further information as to why but I don't have that with me given I don't have examples of every reason why people may or may not have accepted taking this on. 12:50 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Given you seem to know what the minister was doing in relation to your answers to Senator Canavan on this issue with Mount Morgan, I would probably draw to your attention that the reason stated by Mount Morgan was the onerous administrative requirements for them to report for every 30 minutes that they are unable to have a registered nurse on site, that they have to report to the agency or to the department was the reason why Mount Morgan decided they were forced into a situation to have to close because they just did not have the resources or capacity to be able to do that. I acknowledge the concerns raised by Senator Canavan that are being replicated around Australia at the moment for the heavy-handed and punitive approach that this government is taking to supporting aged care. To more general questions, Minister: When will the office of the inspector-general be permanently established? 12:51 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I was just checking for you on the Mount Morgan situation but I am advised that it is on proclamation of this bill. 12:52 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Obviously there is an interim inspector-general in the role at the moment. When do you expect the appointment process for the inspector-general to commence? 12:52 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory The inspector-general cannot be appointed until the legislation commences. The minister can appoint an acting inspector-general pending appointment of the inspector-general by the Governor-General, and the process to appoint an acting or statutory inspector-general can commence once royal assent has been obtained to ensure arrangements are in place for establishment. 12:52 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia How many staff will the office of the inspector-general have? 12:53 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory It will have 21 full-time equivalent staff. 12:53 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia What is the ongoing funding for the office of the inspector-general over the forwards? 12:53 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory In the October budget, $39 million. 12:54 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia To clarify, in the October budget was there $39 million put aside for four years of the forward estimates for this particular authority? 12:54 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Yes. 12:54 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I am keen to understand what mechanisms will be in place where the minister or the government can provide direction to the office of the inspector-general or is it a completely separate independent statutory authority? Are there circumstances under which direction can be given to the authority? 12:55 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I'm advised that the minister can direct a review but she can't tell them how to do it. 12:55 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Can I take it from that answer that the only opportunity for the government or the minister to direct this authority, once it's established, is in relation to undertaking a review? 12:55 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory That is correct. 12:55 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Can everyone request a briefing or advice from the inspector-general? If not, who is able to ask for briefings from the IG? 12:55 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I would expect that they would be able to, Senator. If you're wanting to seek a briefing, I would imagine you'd be able to receive that. 12:56 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Can I confirm that that is correct? You've said that you assume that that would be the case. I'm just interested to understand whether that actually is the case. Maybe I should rephrase the question: is the inspector-general able to provide briefings at their discretion, or is there some capacity for the government or the minister to have involvement in who would get briefings? 12:56 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory It is an independent statutory authority, so yes, but the decision would obviously have to be the inspector-general's. 12:56 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia So I can take it that an aged-care provider, as an example, would be able to get a briefing from the IG? 12:56 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I would expect that it would be the inspector-general's call on that or on any request for a briefing, given the independence of their position. 12:57 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Can I seek clarification? You keep saying you 'expect'. I'd be keen to understand whether it is the case or not. 12:57 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory It is the case. 12:57 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Would you be able to advise whether the interim inspector-general—is he interim or acting? How do we describe him? Senator McCarthy 122087 Interim. Senator RUSTON 243273 Did the interim inspector-general participate in the sustainability roundtables that were recently held and chaired by the minister? 12:57 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Sorry, I just missed that question. Could you repeat it, please? 12:57 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I am wondering whether the interim inspector-general has participated in the sustainability roundtables that have recently been held by the minister. 12:57 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory My understanding is no. 12:57 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Will either the interim inspector-general or the permanent inspector-general, should this bill pass this place and it be established, be expected to provide advice in relation to sustainability? 12:58 Senator 122087 Northern Territory McCARTHY (—) (): Yes. 12:58 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Is there a requirement for the advice to be tabled in parliament? 12:58 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Not in the interim. 12:58 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Can I just confirm: the interim inspector-general can provide advice to the minister in relation to sustainability, and there is no requirement for that information to be tabled or made publicly available? Should I infer from your answer that, once the permanent office has been established, advice provided to government would have to be tabled? 12:59 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory That's correct. 12:59 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia In relation to the new Aged Care Act that's under active consideration, will the new Aged Care Act refer to the role of the inspector-general and the office of the inspector-general? If so, what role will the inspector-general have in relation to oversight over the delivery of the new aged-care system? 12:59 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I'm advised that the bill is still being drafted, so I am unable to answer that question at this point. 13:00 Senator R 243273 South Australia USTON (—) (): Recently, at the National Aged Care Provider Conference, it was noted in a presentation, 'Delivering education and raising awareness of the roles and functions of the interim and statutory officers'. When you refer to 'delivering education' what is the training that is being referred to here? 13:00 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory We don't anticipate training, but there should be education. Again, it's a statutory office, and that will no doubt be left with the inspector-general, in terms of how they conduct their office. 13:01 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia So does the interim inspector-general or will the permanent inspector-general have any oversight in relation to data, particularly referring to, for instance, the implementation of the 24/7 requirement from 1 July 2023? Is that something that they would have any oversight of or requirement to report on? 13:02 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Yes, they'll have oversight of all Commonwealth administration. 13:02 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia In addition, can I take it from your answer that the impact on the new reporting requirements will also be something that the IG will get to report on, particularly as they relate to the questions that were asked by Senator Canavan on the reporting every 30 minutes that a registered nurse isn't on site? 13:02 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory This will be the responsibility of the independent inspector-general—however they wish to choose to pursue the concerns of individual aged-care facilities, including what has been raised by Senator Canavan. 13:03 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Finally, in relation to the memorandum of understanding that the government signed with a number of unions, I'm interested to know whether the inspector-general will have the opportunity to review that memorandum, which compels international nurses to sign up to unions if they wish to work in Australia. 13:03 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory If the independent inspector-general chooses to do so. 13:03 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I'm seeking to get a bit of clarity of understanding around the government's idea of forcing workers to sign up for a union if they want to join the Australian workforce. I'm keen to understand whether you believe that's likely to have a detrimental intact on the number of people that are likely to take up the opportunity to work in aged care in Australia if they're from overseas. 13:04 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Sorry, I missed the beginning of it. What would likely have a detrimental impact? The TEMPORARY CHAIR e5x Can I ask you, Senator Ruston, to speak up a little louder? It's hard to hear you, even from the chair. You have the call. Senator McGrath 217241 That's because they're talking over her, over there. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Interjects are unruly. Honourable senators interjecting— The TEMPORARY CHAIR: It would be helpful, if people want to have a conversation, for them to leave the chamber. It has been very difficult to hear Senator Ruston. I've asked her to speak up into the microphone. You have the call, Senator. 13:04 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I was keen to understand the decision of the government in relation to this memorandum of understanding, which forces overseas workers to sign up to a union in order for them to be able to join the Australian aged-care workforce. I'm just wondering whether you have done any modelling or have any understanding in relation to the likelihood of that being a barrier for international care workers to choose to come and work in the aged-care sector in Australia. 13:05 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory In this instance, it's not relevant to do that. 13:05 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia So you're saying that asking questions about the impact on the aged-care sector is not relevant to this bill? I would suggest that that's probably a lack of transparency, but there you go. I think Australians probably do deserve to understand what the implications of the decisions and actions of the government are in relation to the aged-care sector, particularly when you consider the serious, serious pressure the aged-care sector is under in relation to workforce. I don't think there would be anybody in this place—I don't think there'd be anybody in this country—that wouldn't realise that workforce shortages are probably the biggest issue facing Australia's aged-care providers in their ability to deliver the kind of care that we all want to see for older Australians. Your dismissal of this, as a significant additional barrier that has been put in place and just adds an additional burden to aged-care providers at a time when they're doing it really, really tough, just goes to show the kind of contempt that those opposite have for the aged-care sector and, indirectly to that, the contempt they have for older Australians when they refuse to answer questions. They force aged-care homes, like Mount Morgan, to close because they think that it's easy to just have a one-size-fits-all, city-centric approach to this and then refuse to answer these really, really important questions, which I believe would actually provide the aged-care sector with some level of certainty and clarity about what the intentions of the government are. To refuse to answer those questions, I think, is really, particularly, disappointing. As I said earlier, we believe that the independent statutory office of the inspector-general is a really, really important initiative. It was recommendation 12 of the royal commission, which we accepted, which suggested to established this independent office. We will be supporting the passage of this bill because we do believe that it's in the best interests of the aged-care sector. But I will put on the record how terribly disappointing it is that this government is refusing to provide clarity of detail around the issues facing the aged-care sector and completely dismissing the aged-care sector and the older Australians it looks after. 13:08 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Firstly, the senator has incorrectly focused on my answer there, when I referred specifically to this bill. This is an important bill for the parliament and also for our country in terms of establishing the Inspector-General of Aged Care. What the inspector-general chooses to do will obviously be their role as an independent body. There is certainly no lack of wanting to see the workforce improve and increase right across the country, not just in aged care but in every form of employment that we require in businesses in states and territories across Australia. I want to put that on the record for the senator. Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill 2023, as amended, agreed to; Inspector-General of Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 agreed to. Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill 2023 reported with amendments; Inspector-General of Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 reported without amendments; report adopted. Third Reading 12 13:10 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I move: That these bills be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Trade Support Loans Amendment Bill 2023, Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Amendment Bill 2023 12

Trade Support Loans Amendment Bill 2023

Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Amendment Bill 2023

Second Reading 12 13:10 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I rise to speak on the Trade Support Loans Amendment Bill 2023 and the Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Amendment Bill 2023. I advise the Senate that the coalition will be supporting these bills, and the reason we will be supporting these bills is that they actually implement sensible reforms which the former coalition government developed whilst in office. The Trade Support Loans Amendment Bill 2023 causes the Trade Support Loans Priority List to lapse; it amends the act to empower the minister by legislative instrument to determine, having had regard to any relevant advice given to the minister by Jobs and Skills Australia, a new Australian Apprenticeships Priority List; and it also amends the act to provide that a qualifying apprenticeship is, amongst other things, an apprenticeship through which a person is undertaking a qualification that leads to an occupation or qualifications specified on the Australian Apprenticeships Priority List. What these changes actually mean is that the skills minister can then expand the program's access to people who, through their apprenticeship or traineeship, are undertaking qualifications that lead to occupations experiencing skills shortages, such as occupations in the aged-care, disability care and childcare sectors. We know that apprentices and trainees are doing it tough right now. Why are they doing it tough? Well, there is a cost-of-living crisis, and, as such, we see their groceries, fuel and electricity all going up. The reality is also, unfortunately, that under the Albanese government their real wages are not keeping pace. In terms of the main bill that we have before us, as I said, it actually picks up a very good policy that the coalition government had developed while in government. It enables more students to access this support, and this will be critical to more apprentices completing their studies. That's what we want to see. We don't just want to see apprentices commencing; we also want to see apprentices who actually complete their studies. In terms of the Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Amendment Bill 2023, it updates references in the Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Act 2015 to 'Trade Support Loans Act 2014' with 'Australian Apprenticeship Support Loans Act 2014'. What it does here is align with the broadening of trade support loans to Australian apprenticeships support loans. As I said, these are sensible reforms which improve the operation of the scheme. The coalition commenced this scheme when we were last in government, and we also commenced these important reforms. That is why, as a former minister in this area, with the help of very dedicated team who were in my office at the time, I'm very pleased that we are seeing these reforms come through the Senate today. Some stakeholders, unfortunately, have raised concerns about the consultation process which the relevant minister's office conducted in relation to this bill. The stakeholders themselves remain broadly supportive of the amendments, and they want the passage of the legislation. However, they did comment that, in so many areas, this particular minister's office did no external consultation at all and, indeed, the government's own explanatory memorandum seems to admit that they did no further consultation and that they have broadly accepted the coalition's reforms without amendment. Again, I am very pleased that the bill that we have before us and that, as I said, the coalition will be supporting implements work that we had already commenced whilst we were in government. In fact, to look at the record of the former coalition government: we had committed more than $13 billion to the skills sector, including a record $7.8 billion in our final financial year in office. This was obviously also post the COVID-19 pandemic. In doing so, we also protected more than 530,000 apprentices and trainees through our wage subsidies, announced since the COVID-19 pandemic hit Australia, with total pandemic apprenticeship wage subsidy support reaching more than $7.9 billion. More importantly, we delivered a record 240,000 trade apprentices in training. That number was actually the highest number since 1963. We are very proud of our record in the skills space. It is a proud record to stand on. Again, as I said, the coalition will be supporting the bill that we have before us today because very much it does pick up sensible reforms which the coalition developed whilst in government, and I therefore do commenced the bill to the Senate. 13:16 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I rise to speak to the Trade Support Loans Amendment Bill 2023. The bill amends the Trade Support Loans Act 2014 to rename the current Trade Support Loans scheme to Australian Apprenticeship Support Loans. It removes the current Trade Support Loans priority list and instead allows the minister to determine via legislative instrument a new Australian apprenticeships priority list on eligible priority occupations. Currently, non-trade apprentices can't access trade support loans, and this bill would effectively enable the minister to expand eligibility for these loans to students completing early childhood education and care, aged-care and disability-care courses. The explanatory memorandum to the bill states these changes will mean that, amidst a cost-of-living crisis, more people can access immediate financial support to help them complete apprenticeships and traineeships that lead to work in sectors experiencing skills shortages. The Greens support changes to expand fairer access to financial support, especially for feminised professions, but we can't ignore the elephant in the room: student debt. Student debt is out of control. After student debt was hiked by a whopping 7.1 per cent in June, countless students reached out to us angry, fearful and anxious, many of them having debt which increased by the same as or more than they had repaid over the past year. One student worked tirelessly to pay off $1,000 of student debt over 12 months, only for the same amount to be added back after indexation. That student described indexation as 'breaking their soul'. Another worked a second job to pay $15,000 off their student debt only for $7,000 to be added back after indexation. Student debt is rising faster than it can be paid off, and we need urgent action to address this right now. Trade support loans are yet another loan category, like HECS, which are indexed annually in line with inflation. Like HECS, trade support loans were increased by 7.1 per cent this year after being increased by 3.9 per cent last year. Like HECS, trade support loans are estimated to be indexed at 3.9 per cent yet again next year. This would mean that, in just two years of a Labor government, trade support debts would rise by a whopping 15 per cent. This is just ridiculous, and it's harmful. The rising burden of student debt is causing harm every single day. Soaring student debt is locking people out of the housing market. It is crushing dreams of further study and making the cost-of-living crisis worse. I will be moving amendments in the committee stage to end indexation on trade support loans to prevent these loans trapping people in a debt spiral and to raise the minimum repayment income for these loans to the median wage so that people only have to start repaying these loans once they are earning a decent income. This will help many young people who are struggling to afford food and rent on a shamefully low youth allowance rate to avoid the added pressure of needing to pay off their student debts before they are capable of doing so while still living in dignity. The reality, though, is that, instead of forcing young apprentices and trainees to go into debt to fund basic living expenses, Labor should lower the age of independence for youth allowance from 22 to 18 and raise all student social security payments above the poverty line to at least $88 per day. That is the way to alleviate a cost-of-living crisis. Right now in this country, people are struggling to afford groceries, to pay for medicine or period products, to afford train or bus tickets and to pay weekly bills. We can't just sit here and do nothing about that. People are struggling to keep a roof over their heads. They are facing rent hikes which are out of control. Students are surviving on instant noodles and lining up in queues for free food. The situation gets even worse for students who are required to work for free as part of the courses for which they will be paying off debt for decades. It should be the other way around, really. Degrees should be free and students should be paid for the work that they do. In what world does it make sense to not be paid for weeks and months of work that students are required to do as part of their degrees? Inflation is increasing because of corporate profits, but wages clearly aren't. Students are working multiple jobs and cutting back on necessities but still barely scraping by. It is an absolute travesty that the Labor government is allowing this to go on. An education system that pushes students further into inequality is a completely broken system, and a welfare system that doesn't lift people above the poverty line to ensure that they are living in dignity is an utterly cruel one. Something needs to be done right now, and the government has the power to do it. With the progressive majority in the Senate, Labor has the power to lift people out of poverty immediately. Instead, they're choosing to plunge people further into debt. It is short-sighted for the government to be addressing education affordability by extending access to loans in the way the government is doing through this bill. This just isn't good enough. There are so many more meaningful things the government could be doing. Like I said earlier, they could lower the age of independence for youth allowance from 22 to 18 and raise all income support payments above the poverty line to at least $88 per day. They could take meaningful action for renters by implementing a national rent freeze and rent caps. They could wipe student debt, pay students a living wage for placements and make uni and TAFE free. There is much more to be done, but, as a start, the government could scrap indexation and raise the minimum repayment income to the median wage and reverse the coalition's fee hikes and funding cuts. It is very disappointing that Universities Australia Accord's interim report does not make any recommendations to take these actions that are urgently needed. There is absolutely no doubt that the government can afford measures to give much needed cost-of-living relief to students. It's just a matter of priorities. Labor is choosing to splash around $313 billion in tax cuts for the wealthiest and $368 billion on dangerous war machines. Labor have been boasting about their $20 billion surplus, but, despite all of this, apparently it is too costly to support struggling students and those doing it the toughest. That is a real shame. The Greens will be moving a second reading amendment to highlight that this bill does nothing to mitigate the student debt crisis at a time when student and training debts are increasing at an out-of-control pace. Our second reading amendment calls on the government to ensure that students and apprentices do not acquire further debt while completing their education. We want to make sure that students and apprentices are paid when undertaking mandatory vocational placements and, ultimately, we want to make university and TAFE fee free and wipe all student and training debt. I move: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes that this bill does nothing to mitigate the student debt crisis at a time when student and training debts are increasing at an out-of-control pace; and (b) calls on the Government to: (i) ensure that students and apprentices do not acquire further debt when accessing government support to complete their training, (ii) pay students and apprentices when undertaking mandatory vocational placements, (iii) make university and TAFE fee-free; and (iv) wipe all student and training debt". 13:24 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania The Albanese Labor government is strongly motivated to tackle Australia's pressing skills crisis head-on. We're doing the work of building sustainable jobs and skills across Australian communities by the establishment of Jobs and Skills Australia, which is wasting no time accomplishing this task. The Trade Support Loans Amendment Bill 2023 will only strengthen this critical work that is being done, and it will demonstrate expanding the valued trade support loan program to make it fairer for hardworking apprentices across the country. Our amendments will broaden this vital loan program to Australian apprentices in the priority non-trade sector, an historic first which will make life-changing differences to so many apprentices, particularly in female dominated industries, across countless local communities in Australia, including in my home state of Tasmania. Debilitating skills and labour shortages are plaguing the economic livelihoods of Australians just trying to get by. These amendments directly address these systemic issues, particularly through further targeting shortages that are deeply affecting the care economy. We strongly believe in the power of trade support loans to change lives for the better and stimulate economic output in several critical industries. Being an interest-free and income-contingent government advance, trade support loans have enabled Australian apprentices to meet necessary living expenses whilst developing crucial skills in their apprenticeships. Eligible applicants are currently able to access these critical loans at needed levels, ranging up to $22,890 over the course of an apprenticeship. The total sums of these loans are then responsibly and fairly distributed throughout the complete length of the nominated apprenticeship. Apprentices often undergo unique tough circumstances, and the Albanese Labor government deeply respect their challenging life experiences during this transitional period. This is precisely why compassionate provisions exist within the trade support program to front-load monthly transfers, respecting that apprentices sadly often face depressed wages at the beginning of their programs. It simply could not be clearer that the trade support loans are empowering everyday Australians and communities nationwide to reskill for the future, covering over 167,000 apprenticeships and distributing a total of $1.5 billion in paid advances as recently as March this year. The Trade Support Loans Amendment Bill 2023 makes imperative amendments that recognise the ability of these programs to provide urgent relief and support to apprentices in crucial areas of our economy. I am proud that this bill makes a historic expansion to include trainees and apprentices in long-excluded, yet critical, professions, assisting them to meet their cost-of-living needs and bolstering the effectiveness of the scheme, including a variety of improvements and added benefits. These amendments specifically expand trade support loans to Australian apprentices in all priority occupations, encompassing both trade and non-trade sectors of the economy. Words cannot express how heartening it is that these sectors include female-dominated sectors in care industries, primarily aged care, child care and disability care. In recognition of the Albanese Labor government's visionary transformation of this vital public program, these amendments rebrand the term 'trade support loans' to 'Australian apprenticeships support loans' to reflect our wideranging expansion of eligibility. As is the case time and time again, this government understands the positive impact of public confidence and making a number of necessary administrative changes because we take our responsibility seriously. As such this bill includes provisions allowing apprentices to backdate payments, providing them with commonsense support and helping them to avoid missing due fees because of errors on the government's part. By expanding access to these assistance loans for the Australian apprentices working in priority occupations and listed under a new Australian apprenticeships priority list, this scheme will improve on its urgency and relevance to sectors universally considered to be of current or future skills needs. We know that when those opposite were in government, they allowed Australians to lose the skills—and not develop the skills, in fact—for the jobs of the future. This initiative, for the occupational category of eligibility, will be kept relevant and future-proofed under our proposed amendments by being continuously tied— Debate interrupted. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 15 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Gas Industry 15 13:30 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Last year the government made one of the biggest public policy mistakes I have seen in my four years in this place. That was to introduce draconian market intervention laws in relation to the gas industry. Those laws gave the government the right to dictate to gas producers what they could charge for their product, who they could sell it to and the terms and conditions on which they could sell it. At the time, those of us on this side of the chamber—especially those of us who have experience in the private sector—warned that those measures would act in a way that would depress supply in the market. Why would you invest a dollar of capital in this country when the government can dictate to you what price you can sell your product for, who you can sell it to and the terms and conditions of sale. Why would you invest a single dollar in this market when you have options as to where you invest that capital? Now we're seeing the political chickens coming home to roost. The chickens are coming home to roost. The evidence before the Senate cost-of-living inquiry on 4 August, from some of the world's biggest gas producers, is extremely disturbing. What we heard from those producers was this: what they're seeing in this country is, 'Layer upon layer of regulation', and 'Change on change on change'. Woodside Energy's executive vice president told the committee that while historically Australia had been internationally seen as a secure investment environment, this was eroding by continued changes to regulatory settings. That is sovereign risk and it is depressing gas supply at the worst possible time in this country. (Time expired). Focussed Ultrasound Therapy 15 13:33 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Imagine trying to sip a glass of water, eat a mouthful of food or type a text message while your hands are uncontrollably shaking. Essential tremor is a nervous system disorder which causes involuntary shaking or trembling of particular parts of the body. It is our most common movement disorder affecting some three per cent of the population. However, there is hope. Focused ultrasound therapy is a rapidly evolving, non-invasive procedure that is seen to reduce tremors by up to 85 per cent. This procedure works by targeting ultrasound beams at the tissues responsible for the tremors and destroying them to a very fine point using high temperatures. It is performed in a single treatment and allows patients to return to normal activities the following day. Sydney man Warwick Savage received the treatment two weeks ago at St Vincent's Hospital after living with essential tremors for many decades. He, along with others who have successfully receive the treatment, is proof that this treatment is effective. It has the potential to dramatically increase the quality of life for essential tremor sufferers. Warwick's granddaughter, who is my staffer, Belinda, is especially grateful for what this treatment has done for her grandfather. We all hope that we can see it become more affordable and accessible in the future. Toowoomba North South Transport Corridor 16 13:34 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland We're in the middle of a climate and an extinction emergency and yet development keeps being approved in areas of significant environmental importance. In my home state of Queensland, the Toowoomba North South Transport Corridor proposes a transport route that will have adverse impacts on residents, on endangered wildlife, on First Nations heritage sites and on the environment generally. Only after a huge outcry from local residents and conservation groups, has the subpar two-week public consultation period been extended. The Queensland Labor government has said that the corridor is necessary to futureproof Toowoomba's transport needs. Why is it that for the big parties the only solution to transport needs is yet another road? Toowoomba, like all regional Queensland cities, is crying out for a modern, frequent, accessible and affordable public transport network. Instead the government is proposing a road the design of which is flawed, the impacts of which on residents have not been properly considered and which will see known koala habitat bulldozed. This government seems to think that turning up to photo events and cuddling koalas is enough to make up for its continuous approvals for development projects that destroy koala habitat. If you're serious about saving koalas, stop logging and bulldozing their homes. The Greens' Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Save the Koala) Bill would prevent developments that clear and degrade known koala habitat from going through without rigorous federal assessment. Any government that truly cares about protecting the environment would enforce stronger laws that protect our environment from the devastating impacts of poor development. I look forward to joining with Toowoomba locals to oppose this ill-considered proposal. Afghanistan 16 13:35 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania Over the last 24 hours, two seemingly unconnected events have occurred. The first of those, yesterday morning in this place, was when Andrew Wallace brought before a number of my coalition colleagues and me some representatives of the Hazara communities, approximately two years on from the takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban. They told us some extremely harrowing accounts of the circumstances in Afghanistan, particularly for women and children. Inability to get an education is one that's been talked about, and I've talked about it in this place myself a number of times. Another is aid not getting out to regions and supporting communities. The second one of those events was the naming of the Australian one-day international squad for the 2023 Cricket World Cup later in the year. How were these two connected? Afghanistan will be playing in the world cup. I've said in this place before that I think the ICC should enforce the rules that they have for their competition that, for men to compete, women should have a full, functioning program. Clearly that's not the case in Afghanistan. Quite frankly, it's great that 20 guys get to have a game of cricket at the ODI 2023 world cup, but how does that occur when women and girls have very few rights and in fact struggle to get an education? The ICC should make its rules count. (Time expired) Energy 16 13:38 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Every morning, the LNP wake up and think about how they're going to pick a fight with this government and other governments about decarbonisation and the energy performance agenda. But they are really just picking a fight with the Australian people, because I can tell you that, across the country, households and businesses recognise the value of technology that helps improve their energy performance, reduce emissions and save on bills. It's why Australia leads the world in the installation of rooftop solar panels, and energy performance technologies are the next step along that journey. Our government doesn't want to pick a fight with the Australian people. Our government doesn't want to pick a fight with the future. We want to make every watt count. That's why this year's budget delivered a record $1.7 billion energy performance package to homes and to businesses. It delivers $1 billion to unlock lower-rate loans to over 110,000 households. It'll allow households to invest in energy upgrades such as battery-ready solar PV, double glazed windows and modern appliances. We're working with the states to deliver a $300 million matched fund to upgrade 60,000 social housing properties across the country, and we want businesses to share in the benefits and the savings as well. The $314 million small business energy incentive will allow up to 3.8 million eligible small businesses to invest in energy performance upgrades. From next year, councils will be able to access a $100 million Community Energy Upgrades Fund to upgrade the energy performance of local facilities like pools, libraries, sporting facilities and community centres. We are getting on with the job, delivering on our commitments and laying the foundations for a prosperous future for our country. Donations to Political Parties 17 13:39 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania The government wants to tighten the tax rules on the petroleum resource rent tax—the PRRT. Labor wants to get a bit more tax from the gas companies. Senator Tyrrell and I and millions of other Aussies think they should go a hell of a lot harder. Let's remember: whether it's oil, gas or minerals, these resources belong to all Australians. They don't belong to the greedy gas companies, who, by the way, made an extra $40 billion in 2021-22 because of the war in Ukraine, off the suffering of others. Who would've guessed? The LNG companies pay little or no tax, because it's not subject to royalties. But I reckon the government won't need to negotiate with us over these changes, because they'll team up with the opposition. Do you know why the red and blue teams will team up? I'll tell you why: it's to protect their party political donations. In the last 10 years, oil and gas companies have donated 11 million bucks to the Labor, Liberal, and National parties. That's a million bucks a year. Who's buying seats? And that's just the money we know about. Over a third of donations come from unknown sources, so you can bet your dirty dollars it'll be a lot higher than that. How about this government gets real on cleaning up all the big money coming into politics? Australia, watch out when the red and blue teams vote together, especially when it involves political donations, because I tell you it is not good for you Australians. The only people they're thinking about are themselves. They forgot about the country. When it comes to political donations, it's all about self up here and nothing else. It is not about putting Australians first. This is becoming a real problem. I will take you two teams seriously when you decide that, when it comes to political donations, you no longer take them from these sorts of companies. Why don't you show us that you've actually got some courage and put something in, in writing, and stop it today? AUKUS 17 13:41 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I rise to extend a very warm welcome to Perth to the USS North Carolina, the first US Virginia class attack submarine to visit the nation since the AUKUS defence agreement was announced in March this year. She is docked at the HMAS Stirling naval base on Garden Island near Rockingham in Western Australia. She is part of the first arrivals under the Submarine Rotational Force-West initiative. We hope to welcome many more UK and US submarines over the next few years under the AUKUS agreement. Through increased UK and US port visits, and through Submarine Rotational Force-West, Australia will progressively develop the skills, knowledge and expertise to operate, maintain and eventually steward nuclear powered submarines. I take great pride, as the defence minister at the time, in having set the foundations not only for AUKUS but also for our submarine agreement under AUKUS. This milestone signifies a promising advancement in our nation's security landscape. However, as a senator for Western Australia, I also understand the absolute urgency of the need for the Western Australian state government to act swiftly to ensure that Western Australia, and particularly Rockingham and Henderson, are AUKUS ready by 2027. Work has to start now on workforce preparations and training and on housing for thousands of UK and US personnel who will be arriving from 2027. We also need significant infrastructure developments and solutions not only to manage traffic to and from Garden Island, with the Garden Island Highway to be developed, but also for the many other preparations required for Rockingham and the region to become nuclear ready. But, as I said, I say, 'You are most welcome,' to the crew of the USS North Carolina. (Time expired) Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 17 13:44 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Over the past month, I've been travelling across my home state and talking to regional Victorians about the up-and-coming referendum to enshrine an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice into our Constitution. I grew up in Swan Hill, and I know firsthand the strength and generosity of our rural and regional communities. That's why I'm confident of a strong 'yes' vote right across our state. Since having the conversations with local residents in Victoria's north-east, I've grown even more optimistic. In Yarrawonga, along the Murray River, I spoke with dozens of local residents about the Voice to Parliament. Regional Victorians are eager to have a conversation and hear about what the Voice will deliver for First Nations communities. A special shout-out to Alan Williams and Aunty Iris Chapman for your enthusiasm and commitment to recognition and listening. I was energised by the community's engagement and the amount of support I saw for a voice in Yarrawonga and across the Goulburn Valley. Just last week, I met with Regional Cities Victoria, a group of municipalities representing the 10 largest regional cities in Victoria. I have met with community members across the Loddon, Mallee and Hume regions. I have spoken with people on the front doorsteps when knocking on doors in Doncaster East and Blackburn North. Victorians are keen to engage and learn more about a Voice to Parliament. Victorians want to build a better country. Victorians understand the importance of listening to local community, particularly in rural and regional areas, because nobody knows the needs of a community better than those who call it home. It is this understanding that is the heart of what the Voice is about. I know this is something that regional Victorians can get behind. When First Nations communities are listened to, we get better policy and better results to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians right across the country. We can ensure every Australian will be proud of the country we have built together. This is about love over hate, about progress over running on the spot, and about unity for our nation, not division. Pensions And Benefits 18 13:46 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria The robodebt scheme was one of the darkest chapters of Australia's social security system and, indeed, of our history. It caused devastating emotional and psychological harm to people across the country. At least two people took their lives because of robodebt and it cost the country over a billion dollars. The report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme was a step towards justice for the hundreds and thousands of people traumatised by the brutal scheme. The report was the culmination of years of fighting, advocacy and bravery from thousands of victims and their families, who were indiscriminately targeted and traumatised by this callous and illegal scheme. Commissioner Holmes' thorough and scathing review proved what victims had been saying for years, and how the harm, trauma and debts could have been avoided if not for the inhumane actions and lack of accountability from the government and, in particular, from the former Prime Minister, Mr Scott Morrison. Thousands of innocent people were made to feel like criminals, when it was robodebt that was criminal, and the Prime Minister, his cabinet and senior departmental officials responsible for this scheme must be held to account for this brutality. My colleague Stephen Bates and the Greens today asked the Speaker in the other place to consider referring the member for Cook to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Members' Interests. The Greens will continue to fight until all those responsible for robodebt are held accountable, all the royal commission recommendations are implemented, until Centrelink debt recovery is suspended and justice is served for the victims of this horrific scheme. Law Enforcement 18 13:48 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I rise to speak to the beauty, strength and resilience of the queer community, my sister girls, brother boys, intersex and disabled siblings. I rise in solidarity against the police, the armed branch of this racist colonial project, who have persecuted first peoples, queer, trans and gender-diverse people since colonisation. Far-Right fascist violence is on the rise. White supremacists are targeting local councils to shut down pride events. The police advice in response has been to cancel these events. Five events have been cancelled in Melbourne alone. Police do not respect us. Police do not protect us. They never have, never will, but they will protect Nazis standing on the steps of government buildings. Transphobia and black inferiority are colonialism in action, and it has a strong history of dehumanising queer and black folk to justify state-sanctioned violence. Since colonisation, we have resisted, we have protested ,and there is pride in protest. Anti-protest laws are being rushed in across the country, giving police more power to suppress resistance to the colony. The latest Productivity Commission report showed federal and state funding of 'justice services' amounted to $22 billion per year. Of this, 64.5 per cent, or $14 billion, goes toward police, who—always have and always will—brutalise our communities. We cannot look to police. We need to look to each other. (Time expired) Albanese Government 18 13:50 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Over the past few weeks, many Australians have received their most recent power bill, and for many it's been a real shock—no pun intended. I've been inundated with countless stories of the power price hikes that many Australians have had to endure under this Labor government. One couple had the horror story of having a power bill of $150 in April, then $300 in June and then $580 in July—$580 a month for their power bill. Their bill increased fourfold in just four months. How on earth is anyone meant to survive in this country if they are paying that much a month for electricity? Businesses, families and young people across this country are suffering at the hands of the Albanese government's reckless energy policy and Labor's failures in this cost-of-living crisis. While Australians are being hit with exorbitant power bills, guess where the Prime Minister is? Well, he's not by the side of working families. The Prime Minister spends most weekends—and most workdays, actually—travelling around the country trying to garner support for Labor's Canberra voice. Hats off to him for supporting the aviation sector, but why on earth is he not talking about the issues that are affecting all Australians regardless of their race? The Prime Minister is so focused on Labor's Canberra voice that he's left Australians behind, and at the end, when this Voice referendum fails, what will he have to show for it? Not only will reconciliation be taken backwards because of the Prime Minister, but Australians will be paying higher mortgages, higher rents, higher power bills and higher insurance premiums. Prime Minister, delay Labor's Canberra voice and focus on the issues impacting all Australians. Local Government 19 13:52 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I rise to note a South Australian council has decided to back the 'yes' campaign with ratepayers' money and to note the enormous backlash from ratepayers that has resulted. I refer to the Mitcham city council's decision to allocate $40,000 to the 'yes' campaign, primarily for a major public information event targeting undecided voters. Adelaide talkback radio has been full of outrage at the move this week. This is the same council which is lifting its rates by 8.9 per cent this year in the middle of a national cost-of-living crisis. Maybe if this council stuck to its knitting—roads, rates and rubbish—instead of meddling in federal affairs, rate rises could be better contained. I want to commend a councillor at the City of Victor Harbor in South Australia for bringing this matter to my attention. One Nation's Carlos Quaremba has made quite a name for himself as a new councillor, and I congratulate him on standing up for ratepayers. I also congratulate him for his intention to move that his council not provide support to either side of the referendum debate. He knows what all Australian councils should know: campaigning for any vote in a national referendum is not what ratepayers' money is for. Labor has already provided more than $400 million for this referendum, and, despite its failures to date, the 'yes' camp is flush with donated funds, high-profile support and the backing of the Australian government. Ratepayers everywhere should be going to council meetings and calling their councillors to make sure no other local government tries to get away with this. As ratepayers, go and have your voices heard. Go to the meetings. Tell them that your money is better spent in paying down their debt or fixing up the problems in their own electorates and not with the 'yes' or 'no' campaigns. (Time expired) Homelessness 19 13:54 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania A recently released report from Homelessness Australia was appropriately entitled Overstretched and overwhelmed:the strain on homelessness services. It revealed a toxic combination of soaring rents and record low vacancy rates which is driving surging demand for homelessness services across Australia, with an increase of 7½ per cent between December last year and March this year. Shockingly, three-quarters are women and children. Federal housing minister Julie Collins said the quiet thing out loud recently when she said, 'What we want to do is create social and affordable housing as asset and investment classes.' What a disgrace. That goes a fair way towards explaining Labor's woefully inadequate response to the housing and rental crisis. Homes are a human right, not an investment class. The federal government spends tens of billions every year to subsidise landlords and property speculators. The rich get richer and the poor end up on the streets. The number of people experiencing housing and rental stress is unacceptable, and far too many are not getting the help they need because governments are not adequately funding homelessness support services. We must do much, much more to ensure everyone in this country has the safe and secure home that they deserve, and Labor can start by accepting the Greens demand to invest $2½ billion every year on public and social housing. That's a pittance compared to what the Labor Party gives to property speculators. Albanese Government 19 13:56 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania It has been 15 months and there have been two budgets since the Albanese government came to power. As I get around my home state of Tasmania, there is one thing Tasmanians have been asking this crew to get on with, and that is their job, not to blame and deflect and say, 'What a mess we've inherited.' They voted this crew in to get on with the job, to deal with the issues that Tasmanians are dealing with. I come to the electorate of Lyons, which is occupied by the Labor member Mr Brian Mitchell in the other place. In the electorate of Lyons on the east coast of Tasmania, six out of every 10 jobs are reliant on the tourism sector. What have the Labor government done to support that sector since they came to power? When it comes to finding workers to fill the jobs on the east coast, it appears they've done diddly squat. I'm not sure how you spell that, but good luck! The problem is we've got a large portion of the coast crying out for workers and the Labor government, in their wisdom, have decided: 'We're going to have a review. We're going to talk about this and think about it and do nothing since we've come to power. Blame it on the last mob.' The electorate which contains the postcode 7190, which covers Swansea township, doesn't have access to the same arrangement when it comes to working holiday maker visas. In August last year, this government commenced an interdepartmental review which was led by the Department of Home Affairs. That was a year ago. A year ago, they commenced a review. Then the minister, Mr Giles, said he will 'shortly consider the recommendations'. This is in a letter to a constituent dated 4 April. We're now in August, a further four months on. Nothing has happened. Two budgets, 15 months and they are not doing a thing to help the businesses in the communities up and down the east coast in the electorate of Lyons. Shame on Mr Mitchell and shame on Tasmanian Labor senators. Australian Antarctic Division 20 13:58 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania I rise today to speak about funding for the Australian Antarctic Division. Recently, certain media outlets have reported that the federal government is reducing the operating budget of the Australian Antarctic Division for the next financial year. Egged on by both the Greens and the Liberal Party—that amazing new coalition!—this assertion of funding cuts at the hand of the federal government is completely false. Let me be clear on this: there has been no reduction in the AAD's operational funding whatsoever. For the benefit of Senator Duniam, who seems a bit confused on this, I will explain. The $25 million in question was never part of the funding allocation for the next financial year to begin with. As the Australian Antarctic Division itself has explained, the $25 million difference in funding from the previous years is due to the cessation of a temporary budget measure relating to commissioning of Australia's newest icebreaker, the RSV Nuyina. In other words, the $25 million shortfall reported in the media is simply a reflection of the Antarctic Division's internal management of its own budget and not as a result of any funding cuts from the Albanese government. The Greens, in their eternal pursuit of cheap political thrills, are more than happy to stretch things even further. A quick look at the website reveals their completely wrong assertion that these alleged funding cuts, which actually don't exist, were the results of a decision by the Albanese government that simply never took place. They go on to say that this is somehow an attack on science. Well, they only need to look at their good friends the Liberals and conspiracy theories peddled on that side to see what an attack on science actually looks like. The truth is that this government is committed to continuing its support for the world-class research carried out by the AAD— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 The time for statements has expired. MINISTRY 20 MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements 20 14:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator Farrell will be absent from question time today for personal reasons. In his absence, ministers will represent portfolios in question time in accordance with the letter circulated to the President and to party leaders and independent senators. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 20 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Cost of Living 20 14:00 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. One Australian told the cost-of-living committee that their mortgage is going up month after month while at the same time no extra income is coming in. In addition, the rising costs of electricity and gas are harder to budget for because of price fluctuations, and food is making the weekly budget have to stretch further than it did in the past. 'The inaction by government, particularly in areas where they could make a difference, is so frustrating.' Another said, 'Interest rates impact our mortgage, inflated food prices in supermarkets, massive energy costs—these are our three biggest, and as part-time workers we are impacted terribly.' The Prime Minister said that he had a plan for cheaper electricity and cheaper mortgages. Minister, will your government admit to these Australians and those like them that you have failed to deliver cheaper energy and cheaper mortgages? 14:01 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Hume for her question. The government understands that many families and households across Australia are doing it tough in this high-inflation environment. It is an environment that is affecting countries around the globe, and it's certainly making it harder for Australians to make ends meet here, which is why our biggest priority since coming to government has been trying to take the pressure off the cost of living where we can without adding to the inflation problem. You would have seen from the budget, and indeed you would have seen from the measures we took—Senator Hume asked about energy prices—our energy bill relief, which those opposite voted against. Those opposite are hypocrites. They come in here and vote against a $3 billion energy bill relief and other sensible interventions to deal with the energy crisis we inherited. They voted against it and then come in here and say that people are struggling with their energy bills. I mean, you can't vote against something and then complain that the government isn't doing anything on energy bills, when that is exactly what we did. Senator Henderson ZN4 It's a joke. It's a very bad bill. Senator GALLAGHER ING We recalled the parliament, we brought everybody back here, and thankfully we were able to win the support of the parliament to get that measure through. That relief will flow through to people's winter energy bills. Senator Henderson ZN4 Well, they're going up dramatically. The PRESID 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Henderson and Senator Hughes, I have called you to order a number of times. I should not have to repeat myself. Your constant interjections are disorderly. I'm requesting that you cease. Please continue, Minister. Senator GALLAGHER ING We've made decisions on cheaper medicines, for example, and we've got the opportunity for those opposite to endorse the policy that we are implementing through community pharmacies for cheaper medicines so that people can save hundreds of dollars a year on what they're currently spending on medicines. We have cheaper child care and our investments in Medicare—these are all investments where we can take the pressure off people's budgets without adding to the inflation problem in our economy. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, first supplementary? 14:03 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The Prime Minister said that his 2023 new year's resolution was to deal with the cost of living. Since the new year, the RBA has hiked interest rates four times, including directly after Labor's budget, by a total of 100 basis points, which has added thousands to the annual cost of average mortgage repayments. Minister, do you think the Prime Minister is succeeding in this resolution? 14:04 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The Prime Minister's priority is the cost of living and taking the pressure off the cost of living for Australians. That has been his No. 1 priority since becoming Prime Minister, and it is something that he is focused on every single day—I know because I work very closely with him. As we put the budget together, we put together other sensible measures where we could to take that pressure of households. We understand that people are doing it tough; we understand that, which is why we've been so surprised by those opposite in the positions that they've taken when we have brought those measures to the parliament, including on energy bill relief, including on cheaper medicines—in those areas where we can make a difference. I would note, because those opposite keep trying to allege something that didn't happen, that the Reserve Bank actually acknowledged that our budget took pressure off inflation. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, second supplementary? 14:05 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The Prime Minister before the election said, 'I'll say this very clearly: Australians will be better off under a Labor government.' Families today are paying around $22,000 a year more in mortgage repayments. Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, please resume your seat. Order on my right! Equally, when a senator is on her feet asking a question, she is entitled to ask it in silence. Senator Hume, begin again. Senator HUME 266499 The Prime Minister said, before the election, 'I'll say this very clearly: Australians will be better off under a Labor government.' Families today are paying around $22,000 a year more in mortgage repayments. Energy bills are up by 22 per cent, and inflation will continue to run rampant for years according to the RBA. Minister, isn't it true that most families today are worse off since Labor came to government? 14:06 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory No, that's not correct. Those opposite will understand—and I think Australians will understand—that the Albanese government governs in the national interest, not in the secular interests of the Liberal Party, which was what the arrangement was under the former government. We have got wages moving. We are implementing cheaper medicines, strengthening Medicare, energy price relief plans, support for vulnerable Australians, cheaper child care, extending paid parental leave, more affordable housing, fee-free TAFE. And we've been doing that despite the best efforts of those opposite to say 'no' to everything. They say 'no to absolutely everything. Any policy which addresses cost-of-living pressures, those opposite say nothing and then they come in here and whinge about it. You're so irrelevant. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order! Senator GALLAGHER ING You're so able to tear things down, to wreck things, while we are dealing with the issues that the Australian people need us to address. Honourable senators interjecting — The PRESIDENT 112096 Once again, senators particularly on my left, I had to call for order several times. I'm asking you to listen respectfully. Cost of Living: Health Care 22 14:07 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria My question as to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Gallagher. Can the minister outline how the Albanese government is making medicines cheaper for Australians, and how will a move to 60-day prescriptions further assist Australians face cost-of-living pressures and improve the health of people with ongoing health conditions? And what reception has the policy received from doctors and health consumers? 14:08 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Walsh for her question and for the opportunity to talk about another one of our policies which goes right to the heart of addressing some of the cost-of-living pressures households are experiencing right now. In January this year, we delivered the largest cuts to the price of medicine in the 75 years since the Chifley Labor government established the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The general copayment was reduced from $42.50 to $30, and, in the first six months of this year, Australians have saved $120 million on over 11 million prescriptions. That's $120 million in savings. We are determined to do more to help Australians with the cost-of-living challenges they are facing, and that's why we announced in the budget that we would move to 60-day prescriptions for a select group of medicines for people who have ongoing health conditions where their doctor approves it. This will mean around six million Australians with ongoing health conditions will be able to access 60 days worth of medicines at the same price that they currently pay for 30 days worth of medicines. This will mean, for six million Australians who have ongoing health conditions, it will effectively be halving the cost of getting certain medicines. It's estimated that Australians moving to those arrangements will save $180 per medicine each year. This policy, importantly, is based on the expert advice provided to the government by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Sixty-day scripts are already in place in New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom. The AMA says this is a 'win for patients' that 'should lead to better medicines adherence and ultimately better health outcomes, with reduced pressure on the health system'. I think, based on those comments, this is something that all of us in this place should support. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walsh, a first supplementary? 14:10 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Is the minister aware of why this policy hasn't been introduced earlier? Has there been any reaction from the health sector to the coalition's continuing opposition to 60-day dispensing? 14:10 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Walsh for the opportunity to answer that question. The previous government was provided with the advice to move to 60-day dispensing back in 2018, some five years ago, and what happened? Well, they ignored it. They did nothing. That's right. They did nothing, just like the entire decade of their— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber! Senator ING This means that, for the last five years, millions of Australians have paid hundreds of dollars more than they actually needed to for their medicines. Only the former government can explain why they decided to keep the costs of medicines higher than they needed to be for longer than they needed to be. The AMA has called out the opposition on this. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson! Senator GALLAGHER ING At a time when many people are struggling with cost-of-living pressures, the public positioning of the coalition on 60-day dispensing suggests they are intent on having patients continue to absorb unnecessary financial pain, with all the negative consequences that that brings. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson, once again I've called you to order. As I've said to senators on many occasions, there is ample opportunity across the sitting week for you to make a contribution. Question time is not the time. Senator Walsh, a second supplementary? 14:11 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Minister, how does the Community Pharmacy Agreement provide support for pharmacists to provide services to Australians? Is the government planning to extend the existing agreement? 14:12 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Yesterday the Minister for Health and Aged Care announced that the government will soon commence negotiations for an eighth Community Pharmacy Agreement. This agreement supports patient access to PBS subsidised medicines, programs and related services through community pharmacies across Australia. In the budget, we announced that savings from 60-day prescriptions will be reinvested into community pharmacy, and we are delivering on that commitment. Every single dollar saved by the government under this measure will be reinvested back into community pharmacy to ensure the ongoing strength of this essential sector. This includes by doubling the total budget of the regional pharmacy maintenance allowance, increasing the budget for community pharmacy programs, introducing nationally consistent pharmacy payments for opioid dependence treatment services, broadening funding for a number of immunisation program vaccines, increasing the regional pharmacy transition allowance and increasing payments for services like dispensing, handling, admin and infrastructure by seven per cent more for all community pharmacies. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 23 14:13 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Minister, over the past week the government has repeatedly criticised the opposition for wanting to talk about matters other than the Voice. So I'd like to ask the government some specific questions about how the Voice will work. How will the different Indigenous groups represented by the Voice resolve internal differences? Will they vote like a parliament? Will they give multiple dissenting opinions like a court? Or will they be required to reach consensus like a treaty negotiation? 14:13 Senator WO 00AOU South Australia NG (—) (): Thank you for the question and thank you for the opportunity to speak about the Voice. As the senator well knows, were the referendum to pass, she and other senators in this place would be part of resolving how— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU Well, you would be. You would be part of resolving how this works. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Cash, you've asked your question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie and Senator Canavan! The minister is entitled to be heard in silence. That is what I am requesting. Senator WONG 00AOU As I said, the senator well knows that, were the referendum to be passed, those in this chamber would get the opportunity, as members of parliament and the Senate, to resolve the sorts of matters that she is describing. Senator WONG 00AOU One hears what Senator Cash says. What I'd say to Senator Cash is that Mr Dutton and Senator Cash are really continuing the legacy of Scott Morrison, always putting the political interest ahead of the national interest. And you know why they talk about— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Order on my left! Order! Senator Cash, you've asked your question. Please allow the minister to answer. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, that includes you! Order across the chamber! Interjections across the chamber are particularly dis— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan! Please continue, Minister Wong. Senator WONG 00AOU They want to talk about everything except what the Voice does, because they know Australians wouldn't find the current situation experienced by Indigenous Australians acceptable. There was proof this weekend. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, what is your problem? I have called you to order several times. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order across the chamber! Senator O'Sullivan! I should not have to call senators individually. Senator Cash, you've asked your question. The minister is answering it. Listen in silence. Senator WONG 00AOU If you want any proof of their intentions, other than observing this chamber, listen to what comes out of their own mouths. Mr Coorey of the Financial Review reported that one coalition MP told him: We can't win the election unless we defeat the Voice solidly, ie we need to defeat it to get to the election starting line. If you ever wanted an example of why Scott Morrison's leftovers are still continuing his legacy, it's that message to Phil Coorey. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister Wong, please continue. The PRES 112096 Senator Sterle, I have just called the chamber to order and then you immediately call out. That is disrespectful. Senator McKenzie 207825 Pathetic. Senator WONG 00AOU I hear 'pathetic' from Senator McKenzie. Well, you know what's pathetic? That's pathetic: to say, 'We can’t win the election unless we defeat the Voice solidly.' You know what that shows? You learnt nothing from the last election about what Australians want. You continue the Morrison-Dutton legacy of always looking to your own interest and never to the national interest. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, a first supplementary? 14:17 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Thank you, Minister. Specifically focusing on the Voice, once again, the government has committed to ensuring that Voice representation is gender-balanced and will include youth and has told the Senate, 'Voice members will be elected.' Which Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander electorates will be required to have a youth member represent them? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Before I call the minister— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, I haven't even called the minister and you are already interjecting across the chamber. Senator Watt is as well. I'll remind you the minister has right to be heard in silence. 14:18 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'd refer to Mr Leeser's comments in a speech he gave, because there are people on your side who support this. He made the point— Senator WONG 00AOU I know that you don't like that there are those on your side who might actually have better principles than Mr Dutton. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Order across the chamber! The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator McKenzie. Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU Mr Leeser went through the principles associated with the Voice in detail. He made this point: The Voice will be a body of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians that will provide advice to the government. It works like a committee. The PRESIDENT 112096 Once again, Senator Cash, order! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pratt! Senator WONG 00AOU As Mr Leeser said: The Voice is about advice so that governments can make better decisions—better decisions that come from listening to people. It is amazing, isn't it, that Mr Dutton seemed to think that saying 'sorry' was the end of the world. Listening to Senator Cash, you'd think that listening is the end of democracy. We think listening to First Nations people in order to get better outcomes isn't a bad way— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, your second supplementary? 14:20 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Specifically focusing on the Voice, once again, the full Uluru Statement from the Heart makes clear: 'The Voice should be accommodated on an appropriate site within the parliamentary circle in Canberra.' Has the government conducted any preliminary work to identify locations within Parliament House or nearby to accommodate the Voice? If so, what work has been done? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Before I call the minister, I'm waiting for silence. 14:20 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia This is the level to which someone who was once a member of the federal cabinet is prepared to sink: to actually ask about that level—an address. We have Indigenous Australians with the sorts of outcomes which are articulated in the Closing the Gap— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Hughes! For all of the senators who are interjecting, may I remind you that tonight we have an open-ended adjournment. If you have something to say, put your name on the list, but question time is not the time for there to be shouting across the chamber and interjecting. Minister Wong. Senator WONG 00AOU Ahead of this referendum, which goes to whether or not we, as a nation, can take the invitations that First Nations leaders and representatives have made, in order to listen to people to get better outcomes in the face of all the disadvantage that time and time again in this place we have all spoken about with such sorrow. And instead of responding to that moment, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate is asking about addresses. Where are you when this country needs leadership? Where is the coalition whenever this country needs leadership? You are in the dirt, as always! (Time expired) Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister. Order! I am asking for silence. Senator McKenzie, I've called you several times. Senator Hughes, Senator Scarr! Order! Senator McGrath. Order! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ayres, I am trying to get the chamber to order, and that interjection across the chamber was very unhelpful. Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct 25 14:23 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Minister, the Albanese government is continuing the Morrison government's climate-destroying gas obsession, with $1.5 billion in public subsidies to develop Darwin's Middle Arm precinct. The US gas company Tamboran wants to frack the Beetaloo and send the gas to Middle Arm, where they have access rights to build a massive gas export terminal to ship that gas overseas. Will the government continue with this $1.5 billion taxpayer corporate handout, knowing that without doubt you are enabling the expansion of gas while the planet boils? 14:23 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I met with the Chief Minister for the Northern Territory, I think, on her recent visit. The point she made to me was that some of the ways in which Middle Arm is described, including in that question, don't accord with the reality of what is occurring. This is public, common-use marine infrastructure, and this is infrastructure that will be needed to develop clean energy industries to get to net zero. I know that the Greens don't have to deal in government with the reality of how to transition to net zero, but we are determined, as a government, to do that. I appreciate that it's a very controversial issue locally and politically, but I think we should all take a step back and understand what is being proposed here: public common-use marine infrastructure to— Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 Subsidies for the cartel! Senator WONG 00AOU What the! Senator Gallagher pointed out yesterday that whenever someone doesn't agree with you, you accuse them of some sort of corruption. It really is a very poor debating point. They're not a cartel, and nor are we. We just don't agree with your position on this. We actually think infrastructure that will develop clean energy industries as well as enabling Australia's gas industry is part of the transition. We don't have the same view that the Greens do on this. I'd make the point that the NT government is seeking to ensure that a range of industries could utilise this infrastructure. We think that's appropriate, and that's what the Commonwealth investment is about. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, first supplementary? 14:26 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Parents and doctors from across the country are in parliament today to raise the alarm about the threat of Middle Arm. The science and scientists can't be any clearer. Any new fossil fuel project being built now will blow the government's net zero target. What do you choose: $1.5 billion enabling a gas export terminal at Middle Arm or your net zero target? 14:26 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I would make the point that I've made in here previously and that, I suspect, will be as successful with the Greens political party as it has been for the last decade or so. That is that emissions under the Paris agreement, under the UNFCCC framework, are measured in terms of emissions from entities that a country is responsible for, so obviously— Senator Waters 192970 What a pathetic excuse! You need to plan this. Senator WONG 00AOU You may not like it, but the world hasn't agreed with you, alright? The reality is gas is a part of the transition. Of course we need to continue to transition over time. Senator Henderson ZN4 Why have you done nothing to stand up against the Victorian gas ban? Senator WONG 00AOU Senator Henderson, I will remind you that, as I recall, your party did support net zero by 2050, and I think you probably said so in Victoria, but if you'd like to go and explain to them that you've shifted from that position, I'd be very happy to watch that happen. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, second supplementary? 14:27 Senator FARU 250362 New South Wales QI () (): The Antarctic is currently missing sea ice the size of Western Australia this winter, while South America is experiencing temperatures of 40 degrees in winter. Do you think that gas expansion in Middle Arm will make these trends better or worse? 14:28 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia (—) (): We think we'll respond to those disasters and tragedies—which are occurring exactly as science has predicted, and we know what happened in terms of those opposite ignoring those—by doing what we said what we would do when we were elected: having an ambitious program on climate; increasing our emissions reductions targets to 43 per cent; becoming one of just 33 countries to enshrine these targets in the law of the land; bringing back the Climate Change Authority; putting net zero in the objects of the CEFC and ARENA acts; legislating the Rewiring the Nation fund; and so much more. That is what we will do, and what we will also do is work with the Pacific in the context of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to make sure the voices of the Pacific are elevated. That's what we will do, because we are interested in outcomes and making sure Australia contributes to the trajectory the world has to be on. (Time expired) Trade with China 26 14:29 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Watt. We've heard already about the good news of China lifting its trade barriers in relation to barley. I note the government's support for the agriculture industry's ambition to achieve $100 billion in farmgate output by 2030. When speaking with farmers, they constantly tell me that boosting trade and market access for our premium agricultural product is critical to achieving this objective. How is the Albanese government's strong focus on improving agricultural trade outcomes benefiting farmers on the ground here in Australia? 14:29 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Sterle, for asking the third question this week from Labor senators about agriculture, which I think is as many as the opposition have asked in the entire parliament. That's how interested they are in agriculture. The Albanese government, as you said, Senator Sterle, is putting the runs on the board this year to ensure Australian farmers, processors and exporters have the best possible access to international markets. Across Australia, one in four jobs rely on trade, so access to international markets is essential for the profitability of Australia's export focused agriculture, fisheries and forestry sectors. Recently, there have been positive developments in the reinstatement of trade in cotton, horticulture and timber and the removal of tariffs from Australian barley going to China. Our calm persistence and sensible dialogue has expedited an outcome for Australian barley producers, with the removal of tariff barriers. I am aware a small number of key grains exporters are still suspended from accessing the Chinese market, and we are working with industry and the Chinese customs agency to ensure that all producers are now promptly registered and allowed access to the market. Just yesterday Minister Farrell wrote to his Chinese counterpart, Minister Wang Wentao, to seek his assistance to promptly conclude the relisting of these exporters. There is also more work to be done to remove the trade barriers that remain on wine, beef and lobster going into the Chinese market, and the Albanese government will continue that work. While our government is working incredibly hard to restore market access with our largest trading partner, the first half of this year has also been very successful in opening the agriculture sector to new markets as well as improving and maintaining existing markets. The barley industry has been a diversification success story. Producers have increased their exports to the rest of the world from $400 million to $3 billion. More broadly, our trade strategy is paying dividends for Aussie farmers. Through expanding markets, the Albanese government is delivering a growth agenda for Australian agriculture. The 10000 Senator Sterle, a first supplementary? 14:31 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I note, Minister, the National Farmers Federation comment that: Scrapping these tariffs is welcome news for some 23,000 Australian grain producers … They said the NFF: … supports trade diversification to provide choice for farmers to make informed decisions about where to export their products. Can the minister outline what market access achievements have been made in new and expanding markets around the world? 14:32 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Sterle; I would love to do that. The Albanese government is committed to protecting and growing our agricultural trade markets, and expanding exports is a key part of that. Last year we recorded 107 technical market access achievements worth a potential $5.47 billion, and 2023 is continuing to advance these successes. India continues to be a fruitful trading partner for Australian agriculture and one that has massive potential as the market opens up. During my recent trip to India, where I was accompanied by about a dozen agricultural leaders, it was great to see such cooperation between our two countries. The recent Australia-India economic cooperation and trade agreement has seen improved conditions and new market access opened to enable trade of Australian Hass avocados. We have also successfully removed tariffs on the export of Australian sheepmeat, rock lobster, wool, most woods and pulps, and hides and skins to India. New markets mean new business for Aussie farmers, and the Albanese government is delivering that. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sterle, a second supplementary? 14:33 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I thank the minister for that information. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator STERLE e68 They might want to listen over there. Clearly the Albanese government is on the side of farmers and the agricultural sector, especially those areas looking to expand into new markets around the world. Bearing all that in mind, Minister, how is this news being received in regional Australia? 14:33 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Sterle, I am very glad you asked, because I think the news is being taken extremely well in regional Australia. You don't have to take my word for it. Let me read to you, Senator Sterle, the latest editorial from the bible of the bush, The Land newspaper. This headline says it all—'Big barley win establishes government agricultural trade chops'. The article says: 'The Chinese decision to drop its tariffs is a huge boost to the government and a blow to the opposition. The government's ability to unlock a billion dollar buyer of Australian barley is a major coup. The coalition government was unable to broker an end to the crippling sanctions because of a series of perceived snubs towards China, not least from former Prime Minister Scott Morrison.' The editorial in the Land goes on to say: 'The ALP is not traditionally regarded as the farmers' friend, but the agriculture sector has reported they have found agriculture minister Murray Watt genuinely engaged, together with trade minister Don Farrell, who has won respect for standing firm on a potential trade agreement with the EU. The government has put runs on the board with its agricultural constituents.' (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator David Pocock. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, please resume your seat. I just called a crossbench senator to ask his question, and the interjections are continuing. Senator McKenzie and Senator Wong! Senator Pocock, please continue. Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct 28 14:35 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory My question is to the Minister representing the minister for infrastructure, Minister Watt. Today I will table an open letter with nearly 2,300 signatures from doctors and medical professionals. The letter calls on the government to withdraw the $1.5 billion of taxpayer funds committed to enable a gas export and petrochemical processing hub at Middle Arm. In opposition the Prime Minister said: If there is one thing Australians have learned during the coronavirus crisis, it is that we should always listen to scientists. The experts, including scientists and many doctors who have joined us in parliament today, are saying we can't afford to proceed with this project. Minister, when will the Albanese government listen to the experts and withdraw funding from Middle Arm? 14:36 Senator 245759 Queensland WATT (—) (): Thank you, Senator Pocock, for your question. As you're aware, the government will provide $1.5 billion in planned equity to support the development of the Middle Arm precinct together with $440 million for regional logistics hubs along key transport links to connect Katherine, Alice Springs and Tennant Creek to Darwin. One thing I want to be clear about—and this is sometimes lost in the debate—is that this investment is not an investment in fracking, and it's very disingenuous that some people continue to ignore facts and fail to engage in the detail of the proposition the Australian government has put to the Northern Territory government. What we are proposing is to make an equity investment in common use marine infrastructure that includes specialist product wharves, modular offloading facilities for manufacturing and dredging of the shipping channel. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator WATT 245759 In fact, contrary to what many people are saying, our funding will go towards infrastructure that supports industries that are critical to meet our commitment to net zero. Those industries include hydrogen and the manufacture and export of lithium batteries. I know it suits the Greens party and a range of other people to characterise this investment as one thing, but in fact this investment is actually critical to meet the commitment we have, and I thought certain other people had, to reaching net zero— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator WATT 245759 including by supporting hydrogen development and the manufacture and export of lithium batteries. The proposals involved include a hydrogen facility using solar energy; green ammonia production; critical minerals processing for use in energy storage batteries and precursor battery materials; and the manufacturing of these products. The truth is that gas remains an important energy source for Australia and our trading partners during the transition to net zero and decarbonisation. A lower CO2 emission liquefied natural gas export facility is also one of the proposals. This is about moving towards net zero, not against it. (Time expired) Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I called the end of the chamber to order several times. I remind you that questions and answers when they're asked need to be done so with silence from the chamber. Senator Pocock, first supplementary? 14:38 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Nearly 100 doctors from the NT and around the country and dozens of parents from the NT have travelled here to raise their concerns. If Middle Arm goes ahead, it would likely become Australia's next cancer alley and children will have a high likelihood of leukemia, premature birth, lung disease, heart disease and stroke. Minister, is the government being negligent funding this project, given you know these will be the outcomes for people living in Darwin? 14:39 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Pocock. I accept that both you and the people who have travelled to Canberra to voice their opinions are sincere in their beliefs, but they are not beliefs that are shared by the Australian government. As I say, this development, from our point of view, is all about helping facilitate the transition towards a net zero economy—and I know, Senator Pocock, that's something that you believe in. It's certainly something the Labor Party believes in, and I'm sure the people who have come to Canberra to speak with people share that view as well. This development, as I say, is about things like investing in and developing hydrogen facilities using solar energy, green ammonia production and critical minerals processing for use in energy storage batteries. These are the kinds of things that we are going to need if we are actually going to achieve the net zero transition that I believe in, that I think you believe in and that I'm sure that the people who have come to Canberra believe in. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, second supplementary? 14:40 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Minister, your greenwashing is outrageous. You know that this will process gas, primarily. Tamboran are saying that. Santos have plans for Barossa. This will have real impacts for people in Darwin and people in the Beetaloo. Stop gaslighting us. Will the government undertake a health impact assessment of Middle Arm, as demanded by doctors across Australia, including from within the NT, before the environmental impact statement is released? 14:40 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As you have pointed out, there is yet to be an environmental impact statement undertaken in relation to this development, and that is something that will occur in due course. I know that Minister Plibersek will oversee that in her usual very professional fashion. Very often, those sorts of environmental assessments do consider the sorts of health issues that you're talking about. We are fully committed, as we are with any project, to making sure that the environmental sustainability of projects is fully assessed before they are approved. More broadly, as you may be aware, Senator Pocock, the Albanese government has made climate change a national health priority. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock? Senator David Pocock 256136 Thank you, President. I have a point of order on relevance. I was really keen to hear, Minister Watt, if you will commit to a health assessment. The PRESIDENT 112096 I believe that the minister went to the answer to that question in the first part of his answer. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, this is not an opportunity to argue with me. I will remind the minister of the question. Senator WATT 245759 Thanks, President. Like you, I think I have answered Senator Pocock's question by pointing to the EIS that is to be undertaken. As I said, it would be the usual course that health impacts are considered as part of that. As I said, the Albanese government has made climate change a national health priority by developing Australia's first National Health and Climate Strategy. That's about— (Time expired) COVID-19 Vaccines: Livestock 29 14:42 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria My question is for the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Minister Watt. You previously discussed the topic of livestock mRNA vaccines at one of your agriculture minister meetings. Can you provide us an update on the progress of mRNA for livestock which are intended for human consumption? Have any trials of mRNA vaccine commenced in Australia for livestock? If not, are you going to commence them? If you are going to do it, for how long? 14:43 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Babet. I note that you now join Labor senators in asking questions about agriculture, and I look forward to the National Party one day joining you in sharing your interest in the agriculture sector of Australia. Maybe we will get there one day. Again, Senator Babet, I know that the issues around vaccines are of great interest to you. I can inform you that currently there are no mRNA vaccines currently registered for use in livestock in Australia, and there are no vaccines that are mandatory for any Australian livestock under the Biosecurity Act. I am certainly aware, like you, Senator Babet, of some discussion that is occurring and some trials and things like that in relation to mRNA vaccines, and there is a lot of interest about that in the agriculture community and the wider community. I am aware that a research project funded by Meat & Livestock Australia is currently being undertaken by the New South Wales government, and that project has commenced trials on the immunological response to an mRNA vaccine construct in Canada. There is work starting to happen with Australian industry in partnership with state governments on these issues, but, at the moment, these trials are being undertaken to determine whether mRNA vaccines are safe and effective for animals. I think, implicit in your question, was an acknowledgement that we do need to make sure that, as new vaccines and products come online, they are safe, both for livestock and for the humans who may consume the livestock in the form of meat. The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority has the role of evaluating the safety and efficacy of veterinary vaccines and chemicals before permitting or registering them for use. That includes whether meat from animals vaccinated with mRNA vaccines would be safe to eat. I think it is fair to say that we are at a very early stage of looking at what mRNA vaccines can do, and the safety of animals and humans is paramount. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Babet, a first supplementary? 14:45 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria My next question would be: If we ever do approve mRNA for animals, if that day comes—or rather, when that day comes, I have a feeling is a better way to put it—will your government, if you are still in government, commit to labelling food products made from animals that have been injected with mRNA? Because I don't want to eat that stuff and I think there are a lot of people that don't want to eat that stuff either. 14:45 Senator WA 245759 Queensland TT (—) (): I do look forward to a long period of the Albanese government and I look forward to receiving questions from you for a long time to come as well. Matters of labelling, as you are probably aware, are also the responsibility of the APVMA, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. One of the things they take into account in authorising a product for use is its safety. They also have responsibility around the labelling of those products to make sure that consumers are fully informed of what they are buying and to make sure farmers are fully aware of what they may be using in their farming activities. mRNA is a natural part of all animal bodies. The safety and efficacy of mRNA vaccines developed for use in animals will be assessed as part of any registration process. Australia's food safety standards are strictly applied for all food intended for human consumption. I can assure you and the broader public that we will be taking the safety matters that you are concerned about into account. The PRE 112096 Senator Babet, a second supplementary? 14:46 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria Let's say that one day mRNA is being injected into livestock to be used for human consumption; it is realistic that this could happen. If this does happen, will you or your government ever seek to make it mandatory for producers to inject their animals, much like how all of you here made it mandatory for people—otherwise, they would lose their jobs? Will you make it mandatory for animals? The 112096 Minister Wong on a point of order? Senator Wong 00AOU I have a point of order about that question. I appreciate that the minister will answer what he is able to, but it is by definition a hypothetical question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Yes, it is a hypothetical question. Senator Babet, the minister may choose to answer it or you can— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, I need to call you. Minister Wong. Senator Wong 00AOU As I said, Senator Babet—through the chair—I am sure Senator Watt will answer what he is able to but I do think, as a matter of practice, we ought not. It is incumbent on me to raise for the President that the question is hypothetical and, as such, is not in order. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Wong. I am going to invite the minister to answer the parts of the question he can. 14:47 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As has been observed, there are lots of ifs, butts and maybes in that question. The broad point you are making is whether I can see a day when it would be mandatory for livestock producers to inject mRNA into their animals and the short answer to that question is no. As I have said in answer to your earlier questions, before an agricultural or veterinary chemical product can be legally supplied, sold or used in Australia, it must be registered by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority or approved for use under permit. The APVMA has advised they have not registered or approved under permit any mRNA vaccines in Australia for vets. We are at a very early stage. The project and research undertaken at the moment are about ensuring the safety of using mRNA vaccines, both in terms of the safety of livestock and the safety of humans who would go on to consume that livestock. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 30 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS United States Congressional Staff Delegation 30 14:49 The PRESIDENT 112096 I wish to draw to the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the gallery of a Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade hosted United States Congressional Staff Delegation. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and, in particular, to the Senate. Honourable senators: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 31 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Veterans: MATES Program 31 14:49 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Welcome. My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Wong. Last week it was revealed in the Saturday Paper that the Department of Veterans' Affairs has routinely transferred the very private and personal medical data of Australian veterans to the University of South Australia. This data was transferred without the knowledge of or consent from any of the veterans whose information was released. None of this data has been de-identified. This realisation has come as a huge shock to the veteran community, as you can imagine. While they are unsurprised that the department has breached their trust in this way, they are very concerned at the lack of transparency regarding the transfer of this data. What exactly is being held by the University of South Australia, and what is it being used for? 14:50 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thanks to Senator Lambie for her question. I think she made a contribution either earlier this week or last week about this issue, and I acknowledge her continued advocacy on behalf of our veteran community. She does, I think, a great job on that front, and I know how much it is appreciated. I will have to take some of the detail of the question on notice, because the information I have is insufficient to respond fully to your question, Senator Lambie. What I would say is that I understand that the Veterans' MATES program, which is what this refers to, has in fact been in place for some time—I think since the Howard government. I do have information that there has been an acknowledged privacy breach of an individual and that the department has recognised the distress this has caused. I think an apology has been issued or there has been communication from the department. I'm also advised that the department commissioned an external review of its privacy settings and procedures in late 2022 as a result of these matters and has implemented its recommendations. What I don't have is a direct response to the broader issue about the totality of the data and the extent to which anything untoward has occurred in relation to that data. So I will ask the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to ask his department to provide me with an answer on that issue. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, first supplementary? 14:52 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania The MATES page on the Department of Veterans' Affairs website claims: The program provides information and resources to: health professionals pharmacists our clients (including veterans and their dependants). There is no mention of the University of South Australia. Could you please inform the veterans of why that web site hasn't been updated to show that their information has been going to the University of South Australia? 14:52 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'm not familiar with the website. The information I have is that the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the university have strict policies in place to ensure the appropriate protection of personal information and that ethics approval remains in place, guiding the delivery of the program to the benefit of the veteran community. Identified data is only used to write to veterans who are at risk of medicine related problems and to the veteran's doctor, to encourage a positive conversation tailored to the veteran's specific healthcare needs. I am also advised that the program uses health billing data, not health professional notes, to identify those at risk. The information I have—which I don't think is consistent with the proposition you just put to me, so I will need to understand that—is that all other data used in the program is de-identified. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, second supplementary? 14:53 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania My office is receiving calls and emails from veterans with attachments from the University of South Australia itself to advise it is demanding payment from veterans who are seeking information on how their records have been used and who else they have been sent to. Does the government have any idea why Australian veterans are being asked to pay for access to medical data held by the university when it is the veterans' own data that was never approved to go out in the first place? 14:54 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator, as you would probably gather, I don't have any information in relation to charging for the data in the brief from the department, so I will have to take that part of your question on notice. International Development Assistance 32 14:54 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Given it has been nearly a decade since there was a long-term international development policy to drive the government's development assistance, can the minister outline how the Albanese government is restoring Australia's international leadership and advancing Australia's interests in a peaceful, stable and prosperous region through our new international policy, and how this will ensure we are a partner of choice in our region? 14:54 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank Senator Bilyk for her question, for her interest in this matter, and I thank all of my colleagues for their support for a development program that serves both our national interest and the interests of our partner countries. We do believe, on this side of the chamber, that we should deploy all elements of our national power to advance Australia's interests, to shape our region and the world for the better. The new international development policy is the first long-term policy in almost a decade. It will deliver a development program that is effective, responsive, transparent and accountable. We've all spoken in this place and beyond about how we face the most challenging strategic circumstances in many generations. That's why we have to deploy all aspects of our national power, all tools of state craft to help shape the region we want, a region that reflects Australia's national interests and the shared interests of the region. That includes our development program because development underpins stability. Minister Conroy and I, in government, have had a clear purpose of revitalising Australia's development policy and funding. Australia will offer genuine partnerships based on respect, listening and learning from each other. We will support local leaders to create local solutions while contributing to our own strengths, our economy, our institutions and the connections and knowledge of Australians. After an unfortunate decade of denial and disrespect from those opposite, we are committed to working respectfully with our regional partners. We are committed to supporting our regional partners address the biggest threat to our region, which is climate change. New targets will also ensure our development assistance tackles climate impacts and improves the lives of women and girls. A new performance and delivery framework will guide the implementation of policy. It is an international development policy fit for the challenges and opportunities of our time. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bilyk, first supplementary? 14:56 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania Thank you for that answer, Minister. I've noticed that the Albanese government has delivered long-term growth to Australia's official development assistance program over the last two budgets. Can the minister outline how the Albanese government has rebuilt and stabilised Australia's development program? 14:57 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia What we know is those opposite, for nine long years, played the toxic politics of negative globalism. It is the same sort of strategy we've seen from them on so many issues when the national interest is engaged. On this front, we saw the slashing of our development assistance by $11.8 billion. Despite our region becoming more competitive, those opposite refused to reverse their cuts to development. And do you know what those cuts did? They damaged our credibility. They damaged our national interest. They were a reduction in Australia's influence and national power, and they left a vacuum for others to fill. Over two budgets, the Albanese government has rebuilt the ODA program, an important step towards the goal of making Australia more influential and stronger in the world. We look forward— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bilyk, second supplementary? 14:58 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania Thank you again, Minister. I understand the Albanese government engaged extensively with stakeholders on the international development policy and development finance review. Can the minister outline some of the responses from the sector who have waited almost a decade for a long-term development policy? 14:58 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The Albanese government's new development policy and development finance review, which we are releasing today, was informed by consultations in Australia and with our counterparts across the region. The Australian Council for International Development, ACFID, the aid sector's peak body, said today it: … warmly welcomes the release of the new development policy. In particular, the policy is noteworthy for its … focus on climate as a major driver of instability and a challenge for our times. Bridi Rice, the chief executive of the Development Intelligence Lab, said: This policy sets out a good faith, transparent and long-term approach to development that can help create a peaceful, stable and prosperous region—which serves Australia's national interests … I look forward to meeting with more sector representatives alongside parliamentary colleagues at our official launch this afternoon. Together, we'll work to rebuild support for Australia's development program, and I would invite, noting Senator Birmingham's comments today, him and those opposite to join us in the rebuilding of that program. (Time expired) Middle East 33 14:59 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Will the Albanese Labor government be changing Australia's position in terms of how we describe Israeli settlements as being legal or not under international law? Will the Albanese Labor government also be changing Australia's position to formally recognise such territories as occupied Palestinian territories? 15:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank the senator for the question, and I acknowledge his interest and expertise in national security and foreign affairs matters. What I would say to him is that this government is guided by the principle of advancing the cause of peace and progress towards a just and enduring two-state solution. It is clear that viewing the conflict from one perspective will not achieve such peace, and any lasting solution to the conflict cannot be at the expense of either Palestinians or Israelis. The conflict is a matter to be resolved through negotiations between the parties. I've outlined our principle position, and what I would say to the senator is that we have taken steps consistent with these principles. We've reaffirmed Australia's previous longstanding and bipartisan position that Jerusalem is a final status issue. We recognise that this is a deeply felt issue for many, and there are few issues more central to the Jewish people than the status of Jerusalem. We've rebalanced Australia's positions in international forums while opposing anti-Israel bias in the UN. We've called out unilateral actions that undermine the prospects of peace. We unequivocally condemn all forms of terrorism and violence against civilians in Israel and in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and have repeatedly called on both Israeli and Palestinian leaders to take immediate steps to halt the violence. We are gravely concerned about alarming trends that are significantly reducing the prospects of peace. We are deeply concerned by the Israeli government's settlement activity, including its advancements of thousands of settlement units and the retroactive legalisation of illegal outputs and policy changes. The Australian government is strengthening its opposition to settlements by affirming that they are illegal under international law and are a significant obstacle to peace. This is consistent with the positions of past governments and reflects legal advice and UN Security Council resolutions which determined that the settlements have no legal validity and constitute a violation of international law. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Fawcett, first supplementary? 15:02 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia Minister, the media is reporting the things you have described and saying that the government will recognise certain territories as occupied Palestinian territory. Has the government determined precise boundaries for these territories, and, if so, how has such determination been anything other than, as the minister has previously said, a unilateral action which reduces the prospects of a just two-state solution? 15:02 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Australia is proposing to adopt or will be adopting or returning to the term 'Occupied Palestinian Territories'. The point I'd make to the senator is that that is consistent with the UN Security Council resolutions. It is consistent with the approach taken by key partners, including the United Kingdom, New Zealand and the European Union. This is a term which has been used on past occasions, by past foreign ministers and past governments, and is consistent with much of the nomenclature that is used within the UN context. And it is used, as I said, by key partners, including the United Kingdom, New Zealand and the European Union. In adopting the term, we are clarifying that the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza were occupied by Israel following the 1967 war and that the occupation continues. This reaffirms our commitment to a negotiated two-state solution in which Israel and the future Palestinian state coexist. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Fawcett, second supplementary? 15:04 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia As the minister has said, this is a sensitive topic in the community, internationally and within political parties, including the minister's own. Given the timing leading up to the National Conference of the Australian Labor Party, could you detail for the Senate—in terms of numbers of meetings and correspondence, including email and face-to-face meetings—the extent of consultation with the Israeli government, Palestinian representatives and leaders within the Labor Party factional system? 15:04 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I think the only matter that is properly within my portfolio is the engagement I've had with the ambassador and/or DFAT has had with the Israeli embassy. I will obtain those details. I can confirm there has been engagement with the ambassador, and that's because we do remain a committed friend of Israel—we do, and we recognise Israel's right to defend itself. We recognise the uniquely challenging security environment, and we continue to call out—this is not a partisan issue. Australia does continue to call out unfair and disproportionate targeting of Israel in international forums. We have opposed the referral of the conflict to the ICJ because we do not believe that will bring parties closer to negotiations. We do continue to fight anti-Semitism. It is a friendship that has been and should remain based on a shared commitment to democracy and the rule of law, and that is the approach we are taking. I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 34 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers To Questions 34 15:06 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of answers given by ministers to all questions asked by coalition senators this afternoon. Australians are getting increasingly cranky. They're getting cranky with the Labor government, getting cranky with Prime Minister Albanese and getting cranky with the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers. Australian families are about to reel under the pressure—the cumulative pressure—of 11 interest rate rises. Often, we think about an interest rate rise in isolation, but increasingly households around the country are having to think about interest rate rise, on interest rate rise, on interest rate rise, on interest rate rise—the cumulative effect of 11 interest rate rises. Over the last few months many of our papers have been filled with news about the mortgage cliff. It is my unfortunate duty to say to Australian families, if they have not realised it already, and certainly to the government, who by their very own actions and statements clearly have not recognised it, that the mortgage cliff is upon us now. Many of us might have read just recently in papers that 150,000 households on cheaper fixed rates will move to variable rates in September alone. That, we are told, is a $95 billion refinancing cliff of Australian mortgages. We call it a cliff because it is going to be a very, very hard fall for many Australian families. To put that in context, we are talking about 150,000 fixed rates moving to variable rates in September alone—that is, 150,000 of the estimated 880,000 which are said to shift from fixed rates to variable rates this year alone. I think it is time that the Senate chamber and the government in particular try to think about that. What does that mean on the average streets in the average suburbs of Australia's cities and regional towns? For some families that is going to mean an extra $22,000 a year in mortgage costs, which means they are going to have to find an extra $22,000 from their household budgets. Where is that money going to come from? It might have to come from school fees. In might have to come from sporting club fees. It might come from the vacations that families would have wanted to take or would have planned for during the school holidays. The pain that Australian families are experiencing or are about to experience as this mortgage cliff continues to wash over the Australian economy is real, it's immediate and it's going to hurt. The National Australia Bank released data just recently suggesting that 67 per cent—almost 70 per cent, almost 7 in 10—of Australians under the age of 50 said that the rising cost of living is now their biggest cause of stress. The ABS has reported that working households experienced a 9.6 per cent increase in their annual cost-of-living expenses, the highest annual rise on record. Who is Labor punishing as a result of their lack of effort in combating inflation, their lack of regard for 11 interest rate rises? They're punishing the very people that elect them. They're punishing younger Australians. Why is it that Labor has chosen to hurt that one group of people who put them in this place in the election in May last year? Commonwealth Bank of Australia went on to say: These trends come together to create a cost-of-living pressure perfect storm for millennials … The younger you are, the more you need to curtail your spending due to rising cost-of-living pressures. Why does Labor want to hurt young Australians? 15:11 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania We understand that many families and households across Australia are doing it tough, and we all know—on that side as well as this side—that a lot of that has been caused by issues out of our control. We've seen that that has added to the inflation problem. You've got to ask what the opposition actually stands for, other than standing against everything we put up. If they were really concerned about the cost of living, they would support the bill that we put up to help relieve pressure on families. They're fairly hypocritical on that side. They come in here and they vote against $3 billion of energy bill relief and other sensible interventions that we've put up, and then they complain that people are struggling with their energy bills. I find it very hard to come to grips with why they wouldn't support the bills we've put up but would then come in and complain that things haven't changed or whatever. This issue goes back to long before we came to government. In fact, I've got a quote here from Sussan Ley, who accepts that the energy crisis was the Liberals' fault. She says: Well, I hope that we get back to something that is well away from the chaos of the last few days. But this is huge problem for the Government. That is true: it is our problem to deal with now, but we did not cause the problem. And it's not one that was created since they— us, the government— arrived in power. Everything that they talk about, all of those factors at play were there when they came into Government with the plan. So, it is down to them to fix this. What she is saying, as I interpret it, is that these issues were there when you guys were in government. And what did you do about things? Well, let me tell you what you didn't do. You had a minister that acted to hide the price increase caused by the atrocious Russian invasion of Ukraine, while we acted to shield families from them. You hid power price rises during the election. You voted against energy relief in the parliament. Over nine years, those opposite had 22 energy policies, and not one of them worked—not one of 22 energy policies in nine years. The 'no-alition' are so negative that they even oppose the construction of affordable housing, including emergency housing for women and children escaping domestic and family violence and including homes for veterans. They opposed the National Reconstruction Fund, which is putting $15 billion into rebuilding Australian manufacturing. They opposed fee-free TAFE, which has so far given more than 150,000 Australians the chance to take up study, improving their prospects of getting a skilled, well-paying job whilst addressing critical skills shortages. They're just forever saying no. No wonder people are referring to them as the 'no-alition'! What have we done? We've got wages moving. We're implementing cheaper medicines and strengthening Medicare. There is more support for vulnerable Australians and cheaper child care. We're extending paid parental leave. There is more affordable housing and fee-free TAFE. There are all these issues, and we've been doing them despite the best efforts of those opposite to say no to absolutely everything. Any of these policies can help relieve cost-of-living pressures, but, as I said earlier, those opposite say nothing or they vote against them, and then they come in here and grizzle and harp on as though they're so pure. Well, you're not. They opposed an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to parliament, turning their back on First Nations people and the Uluru Statement from the Heart. They even opposed the safeguard mechanism, despite it being their policy. Given the way in which the Liberals and Nationals have conducted themselves, I think they have consigned themselves to irrelevance. But from this side, having talked to a lot of people out in the community, it seems to me that the opposition only know how to stay no. You can oppose everything and be relentlessly negative, but at some point you actually have to make some decisions about how the country is going to be run. This relentless, negative, backward-looking, Trump style of politics really has— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Thank you, Senator Bilyk. Senator Fawcett. 15:16 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I, too, rise to take note of answers to questions asked by coalition senators. My own question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs I will come back to in other forums as I understand more about what the government has actually announced, but I do welcome her assurance of their continued opposition to the referral, for example, of Israel to the ICJ by the United Nations, which I think is a positive step. I turn now to cost-of-living pressures, which was the focus of the first question. That's the thing that constituents are talking to me about in South Australia, particularly through phone canvassing, surveys and responses that we're getting from people. I'd just like to draw the Senate's attention to some reporting in the Australian this week concerning the GenCost report and the CSIRO and the admission by CSIRO and their chief energy economist. The reporting in the Australian highlighted—and the CSIRO has now confirmed—that the GenCost report, in making the claim, which is often referred to by Minister Bowen and by advocates for variable renewable energy, that wind and solar are the cheapest forms of power, does not take into account all of the associated and consequential costs in terms of firming and the overbuilding of transmission lines et cetera for those distributed systems to work. What that means is that the work of experts such as the OECD and the IEA, who issued a report in April last year—for those who are interested, I think it was page 35 in the report—shows through good, solid economic and engineering analysis that, without taking into account those systems costs, you cannot fully understand a comparison of different ways to supply energy. In fact, what the OECD and IEA found is that a reliance on a high penetration of variable renewable energies such as wind and solar in fact drives prices up as a nation seeks to constrain carbon emissions. The graph that is, if you like, the pinnacle of their analysis shows very clearly that, as we move beyond 2030 towards net zero in 2050, the cost of achieving that—in fact, they claim it is probably unachievable relying on wind and solar—will become unaffordable. We see that lived experience in countries such as Germany, which has probably the highest penetration of wind and solar in the OECD. They also have the highest prices. If the rhetoric was correct, a high penetration of wind and solar would be driving their prices down, but that is not the case. What the OECD and IEA clearly show—and the GenCost report, which is so relied upon by this government and other advocates for a total reliance on variable renewable energy—is that you need a firming supply of power, which is either hydro, particularly if you have fast-flowing rivers, or nuclear energy as the other option which is zero emission, and, despite the assertions, is actually not the most expensive form of power. That report shows very clearly, in a comparison of levelised costs, that long-run nuclear plants are actually cheaper than many forms of variable energy. By the time you take into account the systems costs, including transmission and firming, they are cheaper. That is why, as we look around the world, in the United States, Europe and the Indo-Pacific region we see nations investing again in nuclear power, because they recognise that, to reduce emissions and have affordable power, we need to make that change. That's why Canada—particularly the province of Ontario, with 19 reactors—has the cheapest power in the OECD. The combination of hydro nationally and, in Ontario, the 19 reactors actually drives the price down for both business and consumers. That's why the coalition is calling for a sensible discussion about removing the prohibitions on nuclear power here, so that our agencies such as the CSIRO and industry can do the detailed economic and engineering analysis to demonstrate, once and for all, that it is a viable option. Then we allow the market to make those decisions. That's the positive agenda of the coalition to reduce prices for Australian households and for businesses, which guarantees not only lower emissions but jobs and affordability into the future. 15:21 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia The hypocrisy that we have heard through question time is quite unbelievable. We have been listening to it over and over again since suddenly, somewhere in the middle of 2022, those opposite realised that the decisions made in this place impact the people who live in this country, who vote for this parliament and who rely upon us and upon the policies of this country. Guess what? A cost-of-living crisis didn't miraculously occur in May 2022. It really didn't. There have been ridiculous claims from people across the chamber here who I know are actually educated and intelligent. But you wouldn't think so to listen to some of the absolute nonsense that is being touted, not just in this chamber but across the country, from those opposite, who are just trying to make some stuff up to get a media hit, rather than having any care or consideration about the people of this country and the plight that they are in given the cost-of-living challenges that we are facing. After nine long years with no regard for people's challenges, for people's issues with the cost of living, with no sense of planning for the future, with no preparation to make sure that there are plans in place to protect the people in this country into the future—none—they have done some of the most ridiculous, incoherent things, if they actually had any care whatsoever. They've claimed themselves—and it's been argued in this chamber many times—that low wages were a deliberate design feature of their policy. They did it intentionally, knowingly. If that's your situation, then own it, admit it. Don't turn around when you are not in government anymore and go: 'No, it wasn't us. It's not our fault'. Own up. They opposed a $1 an hour increase to the minimum wage, for God's sake. They said no to Secure Jobs, Better Pay because they said it was going to result in higher wages. They said no to banning pay secrecy clauses and stood in the way of any changes to close the gender pay gap. They wanted to charge a $7 GP tax. They tried to increase the cost of medicines by $5, and they wanted to charge for emergency visits. To hear the rhetoric coming out of them now—the absolute hypocrisy being touted now—is unbelievable. Own up to what you've done over the last decade, own the policies that you put in place, own the legislation that you passed and own the things that you didn't pass. This whole hypocrisy that is being played out is offensive. We know—the facts are there—that childcare costs rose by 49 per cent under the last coalition government. Yet they are making all sorts of accusations about the policies that the Labor government has put in place to reduce the cost of child care. Our policies do multiple things to support families and to support women to get back into the workplace. In nearly a decade, they never once increased any of the supports for paid parental leave. They said no to more social and affordable housing, including for women and children fleeing domestic violence. They said no to $30 million for veterans housing services. The kinds of issues that have been blocked by those opposite are embarrassing to this country. That's before we even get started on what's been done in the housing space, with the blocking of money to build new houses when, every single time they stand up over there in question time, they raise the issue of mortgages and rental prices. Surprise, surprise, people, increasing supply will help reduce the costs of housing. Stop pretending that you don't understand and stand up and own what you've done and own what you have blocked and what you have passed. 15:26 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales I rise to take note of the answers to questions asked by the coalition today, specifically on the cost of living and the Voice. It was interesting to hear the previous speaker using the word 'hypocrisy'. We shouldn't use words we don't know the meaning of, but I'm sure the other side knows the meaning of that word only too well. I'm going to use a word they may not know the meaning of: trust. Let's talk about the lead-up to the last election and the promises that were made, including the promise that you could trust this government, now elected, to bring down your power prices and trust it to bring down the cost of living and make your life easier. Everything was going to be great. All I know is, if you look at the scoreboard, it's like everything has gone up. Everyone knows mortgages have gone up; they know energy prices have gone up; they know grocery prices have gone up. If you look at the scoreboard, the people at home know what's happened. It's like in round 18 this year in the NRL, when the Wests Tigers came off the field losing 74-0 to the Cowboys, a horrible result. Imagine if the coach of the West Tigers got up and said: 'It's the other side. They didn't pass us the ball. They didn't kick us the ball. They didn't give us a ball.' You're in charge of your own destiny when you get here. You got into government to run your own game. If the people trusted to you make their lives better, the scoreboard says you are failing. The previous senator mentioned that child care might have gone up by 49 per cent under the previous government. I'm not going to dispute that; it may have. It was nine years. If the government's first year is anything to go by—and assuming it's in office for nine years—child care will go up 200 per cent over the same period. This is the hypocrisy we're talking about here. They talk about a bill to solve the energy crisis that wasn't voted for by the coalition. It got through. If energy prices have not gone down, it's because that policy has failed. The vote of this side had nothing to do with how that policy is going out there in the world. That's where we're at. We're here in this place talking about trust—the trust that the people of Australia misplaced in the government with their vote, and the trust that the cost of living would come down and people's lives would be better. They are not. Now we go to the other part of the question and the trust the government are asking Australians to put in them on the Voice. They don't trust the people of Australia enough to give them the details; they don't trust the people of Australia enough to give them the answers, and we heard that here today. The 26 pages of the Uluru Statement from the Heart raise some specific questions that this government endorses in full and wants to deliver in full. Where is the trust in telling Australians how it will work, who will vote for Voice members, how they will be housed and these sorts of things? If this government won't trust you with the information, why should you trust them with your vote? That's what this comes down to in this chamber. We're here to do a job. We're here to make people's lives better. It's a job of government to get their legislation through—make it better, negotiate, talk to people. If the Housing Australia Fund doesn't come through, it's not the fault of those over here or those at the end of the chamber; it's the fault of the government for not putting forward a bill that is supported by enough people because it is good enough. People in regional Australia don't want to put their money on a roulette wheel to see if they get a housing allocation for key workers. They want certainty. The people in Mudgee spent six months trying to attract an IT worker for their school. After three months of living there, they couldn't find permanent accommodation, so they moved back to a city. They can't take a risk on that. They don't want to bet that the future fund does well. They don't want to bet that the stock market goes up. They don't want to bet on red when black comes up. They want certainty, and that's why that bill is no good. After just 12 months of this government, we have all these costs going up. We have a focus on a piece of legislation that is dividing Australia, and it was determined to do that. A legislated voice and a vote at referendum for recognition could have brought Australia together. It was chosen; it wasn't an accident. It had to be chosen to be rolled into one. By design, Australia is being divided when what this government wants could have been delivered quite easily and in a better manner. To those at home deciding what bill not to pay, deciding what money to hide, deciding what their kids go without, put it down to this: trust yourselves to do the right thing because you can't trust government. Ask the questions. And be strong. Question agreed to. Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct 37 15:32 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy (Senator Wong) to a question without noticed asked by Senator Faruqi today relating to the Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct. It pertained to the Middle Arm proposal which is an export facility that this government is allocating $1.5 billion of taxpayer money to build. In Louisiana, USA, there is an industrial petrochemical project that's similar to the one recommended and encouraged by the NT government on the site of Darwin Harbour's Middle Arm. It's known locally—and now known around the world—as Cancer Alley. Since oil and gas pipelines feed the chemical production next to the Mississippi River, aliments from headaches to stomach-aches to heart problems and chronic illnesses have spread and spiked. This is the future that the Albanese government could potentially be delivering for Middle Arm, which is located 2.7 kilometres away from the Darwin suburb of Palmerston. That is why parents, doctors and paediatricians have descended on parliament today. They don't want this future that the Albanese government envisions for them. They don't want the government subsidising Australia's cancer alley with $1½ billion of public money. The government calls this a 'sustainable development precinct', and, hey presto, the word 'petrochemical' gets wiped from all government websites relating to Middle Arm. They try and try to only talk about renewals and hydrogen, but their porky pies were exposed when, at Senate estimates, I asked bureaucrats and they told me directly, they acknowledged, that petrochemical and gas production were intended for Middle Arm. The government still persisted in saying that their subsidy wasn't for those things until US megafrackers Tamboran told the Australian Stock Exchange that they had a legal option in the Middle Arm precinct to build a gas export terminal to ship 6.6 million tonnes of gas offshore each and every year. The Albanese government need to stop treating these parents, these doctors and the rest of us like fools. Just admit that you're financing gas expansion and petrochemical production, or, if you want to listen to the science, just rule out gas from using that export facility. You can't have it both ways. If the government were to change the contractual terms of their equity investment to prevent gas and petrochemical production at the site, they could kill the Beetaloo proposal, because there would be no guaranteed purchaser of that gas. The Beetaloo Basin has enough gas to increase Australia's total emissions by 11 per cent. It is a carbon bomb. The project simply cannot proceed in any way, shape or form. Now, Santos told the Environment and Communications Committee that it doesn't make any economic sense to develop the Beetaloo for the domestic market; it has to be exported. So if the government pulls this $1.5 billion handout or simply says 'no, the export facility can't be used for gas,' we could stop the climate bomb of the Beetaloo being detonated. People from Darwin who are here in the building today have some asks for two ministers. The first message is for Minister Catherine King: do not use this infrastructure money to enable gas expansion. The message for Minister Plibersek is to delay the release of the EIS until a thorough health assessment has been completed as requested. I might just pick up Minister Watt for an inaccuracy in response to a different question today, where he contended that health impacts are considered as part of an EPBC EIS proposal; that's not correct. The minister should know better and, if he doesn't, he needs to get some better advice, stats, and perhaps come in and correct the record. They should do a health assessment but one is not presently required. The message from the Larrakia People is that they want a full cultural heritage assessment undertaken under Larrakia control before the EIS is released. They are using their Voice to Parliament right now, and one would hope the government could listen. We had quite the journey from Minister Watt and also from Minister Wong responding to questions on Middle Arm today. At first they were saying, 'This is great. This is just for hydrogen and for solar,' but then they snuck in 'Oh, no, it is also for a LNG gas export facility.' That confirms what bureaucrats told me in Senate estimates. We know the gas export facility would enable customers and would justify the economic expansion of the Beetaloo Basin. We cannot afford that to happen. We will blow any chance of meeting your pathetic targets or staying anywhere near 1.5 degrees of warming. So be honest and use this $1½ billion in a better way by ruling out gas or by simply withdrawing taxpayer funding for this gas export terminal. Question agreed to. NOTICES 38 NOTICES Presentation 38 15:37 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2023, allowing it to be considered during this period of settings. I also table a statement of reasons justifying the need for this bill to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows— STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2023 SPRING SITTINGS TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION AND ACCESS) LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL Purpose of the Bill The bill amends sections 65 and 137 of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (and any related provisions) to ensure approvals to communicate, use and record information collected under section 11A, 11B and 11C warrants ('foreign intelligence information') can support necessary information sharing practices that are critical to the protection of Australia's national security. Reasons for Urgency The communication, use and recording of foreign intelligence information is critical to the protection of Australia's national security. Urgent legislative amendments are required to ensure that future approvals for the sharing of such information continue to support this objective. Urgent passage of the bill is critical to support this policy and legislative objective. NOTICES 39 NOTICES Presentation 39 BUSINESS 40 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 40 15:38 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Payne for 7 to 10 August for personal reasons. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 40 15:38 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted for Senator Farrell for today for personal reasons. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 40 15:38 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators: (a) Senator Steele-John from 7 to 10 August for personal reasons; (b) Senator Allman-Payne from 7 to 10 August for personal reasons. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 41 COMMITTEES Economics Legislation Committee 41 Reference 41 15:39 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move: That the Competition and Consumer (Gas Market Code) Regulations 2023 be referred to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 6 October 2023. Question agreed to. BILLS 41 BILLS Protecting the Spirit of Sea Country Bill 2023 41

Protecting the Spirit of Sea Country Bill 2023

First Reading 41 15:40 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 and the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009, and for related purposes. Question agreed to. Senator COX 296215 I present the bill and move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 41 15:42 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill. Leave granted. Senator COX 296215 I table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— In December 2022, the Full Court of the Federal Court upheld the landmark determination made in Tipakalippa v National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (No 2) [2022] FCA 1121, dismissing Santos' appeal, who were also a party to these proceedings. This case centred around Santos' proposed Barossa Gas Project, off the coast of the Tiwi Islands. It is important to note at the outset that this project was, and continues to be, opposed by the Traditional Owners of the Tiwi Islands. Santos' so-called consultation with the 8 clan groups that make up the Traditional Owners of the Tiwi Islands consisted of 2 emails and 1 unanswered phone call to 1 of the clan groups. When proponents of projects prepare an environment plan or an offshore project proposal for their projects, they are legally required to consult with various people, departments, agencies, and Ministers who are deemed to be a 'relevant persons' under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations2009 (Cth). Under these regulations, Traditional Owners and knowledge holders within First Nations communities are not explicitly included as a 'relevant person' that must be consulted and there are no standards for consultation. In this case there were also concerns raised around the identification of cultural heritage, both tangible and intangible, the risks that projects may pose, and how these risks will be mitigated or avoided. These are three shortcomings of the regulatory framework that governs offshore projects. No standards of consultation. No requirement to consult with Traditional Owners and knowledge holders within First Nations communities. No requirement to identify underwater cultural heritage that may be impacted by projects. This bill seeks to change that. First Nations people MUST be consulted in a genuine and meaningful way about projects that are proposed to happen on their country. Sea or land country. This includes but is not limited to: providing easy to understand information about the project about the size of it, the methods that will be used, the level of disturbance that will occur, infrastructure that will be built, timelines; providing opportunities for members of the community to raise questions or concerns about the project with online and in-person meetings that are held at reasonable times, with sufficient notice, and take into consideration any cultural events that may be happening in that community at that time; providing information in language and having interpreters present. This will look different for each community. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to consultation and nor should there be. This bill intentionally leaves setting these standards to regulations so they can be updated more easily over time and so that broader consultation and co-design can occur with Traditional Owners and knowledge holders within First Nations communities and other 'relevant person's on how they would like to be consulted. It is our intention that any standards will be extensively consulted on and will be regularly updated. As stated in the text of this bill, they must include the principle of free, prior and informed consent as set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. For far too long, First Nations people have not been consulted with in a genuine way about projects that are occurring on their country. This has to change. This case was a massive win for Traditional Owners, not just in the Tiwi but across the country. However, it is disappointing that the onus is continually placed on Traditional Owners to engage in timely and costly legal challenges for their right to be heard. Fossil fuel companies, who make billions of dollars in profits, have the capital to afford these legal battles, many First Nations communities don't. The power imbalance between Traditional Owners and proponents of these projects has been skewed for far too long, that is why we are seeking to legislate the principles of this case. To give Traditional Owners the legal right to be consulted with about projects occurring on their land. Senator COX 296215 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 42 DOCUMENTS Australis II 42 Order for the Production of Documents 42 15:42 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than midday on Thursday, 11 August 2023, any emails, file notes, briefing materials and records of other interactions, since 31 May 2022, between the Bureau of Meteorology and the Minister for the Environment and Water and/or her staff in relation to the Bureau's supercomputer, known as Australis II. Question agreed to. NOTICES 42 NOTICES Withdrawal 42 15:43 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 288 standing in my name for today. COMMITTEES 42 COMMITTEES Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Joint Committee 42 Reference 42 15:43 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I move: That the resolution of the Senate of 2 August 2022, which referred terms of reference for an inquiry to the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander Affairs and ordered that further consideration of Senator Thorpe's United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People Bill 2022 (general business order of the day no. 12) be deferred until the committee reports, be varied to remove the restriction on the further consideration of the bill. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 42 DOCUMENTS MRH-90 Taipan 42 Order for the Production of Documents 42 15:44 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move: (1) That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, by no later than 9 am on 9 August 2023, all incident reports, safety evaluations, briefing notes, correspondence and information held by: (a) the Department of Defence; (b) the Minister; or (c) the Minister's office; in relation to the MRH-90 Taipan helicopter, between 22 March 2023 up to and including 27 July 2023. (2) That, in complying with this order, the Minister may redact from the documents information identifying personnel and information in relation to training techniques. 15:44 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 The government will not be supporting this motion. The tragic incident involving the loss of four members of the Australian Defence Force occurred just over a week ago. Recovery efforts continue. As the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chief of the Australian Defence Force said last week: …there will be a full investigation and we will come to understand exactly what happened and learn the lessons from it. The government is committed to transparency, and we will be transparent about that. While recovery efforts at sea continue, it is not the time to move motions seeking documents that may form part of the investigation into this tragic incident. This investigation will rightly be conducted by experts—not by Senator Shoebridge through the media. 15:45 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 The opposition is disappointed with this motion and will not play politics with the loss of Defence lives. We welcome the statements from the Deputy Prime Minister that there will be a thorough investigation into this incident and that the MRH-90 Taipan helicopters have been grounded until further notice. We expect the government to be transparent about the review findings and its next steps. There will be numerous opportunities for Senate scrutiny of these processes and also of earlier decisions. However, at this time, our thoughts are with the Defence personnel we've lost and their families, loved ones and mates. We also acknowledge all of those who have worked on the rescue and recovery operations, along with those undertaking current investigations. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 271 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:50]
(The President—Senator Lines)

14 AYES Babet, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 27 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Duniam, J. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. 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.

COMMITTEES 44 COMMITTEES Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee 44 Reporting Date 44 15:53 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales At the request of Senator Canavan, I move: That, in respect of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee's inquiry on the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Amendment Bill 2023: (a) the time for the presentation of the report be extended to Wednesday 6 September 2023; and (b) the Senate directs the committee to hold a public hearing in Canberra before the committee reports and invite representatives of the following organisations to give evidence for a period between 30 to 60 minutes each: (i) the Australian Capital Territory Government, (ii) Calvary Health Care ACT Limited, and (iii) the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn. 15:53 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory by leave—I move: That the motion be amended as follows: Paragraph (b), after "invite representatives of the following organisations" insert ", and any others the committee so chooses,". Paragraph (b)(ii), omit "and". After paragraph (b) (iii), add: (iv) the Health Care Consumers Association, and (v) the Australian Salaried Medical Officers Federation. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion to amend business of the Senate motion No. 286, as moved by Senator David Pocock, be agreed to.

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

31 AYES Antic, A. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. 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. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. 31 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

16:02 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 286, standing in the name of Senator Canavan and moved by Senator Cadell, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:06]
(The President—Senator Lines)

31 AYES Antic, A. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. 30 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) 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. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 45 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Housing 45 16:10 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 A letter has been received from Senator McKim: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: The Albanese government should listen to the three-quarters of Australians and the 80 housing organisations who want the Federal government to work with state and territories through National Cabinet to implement rent caps nationwide and the 9 in 10 people who want the government to spend more money to directly build affordable housing. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 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 FARUQI 250362 New South Wales We are in the midst of a housing and rental crisis. Over 1,600 Australians are being pushed into homelessness each month as the housing crisis deepens. The question is: is the Albanese government prepared to face this reality and offer the solutions needed to address the scale of the housing crisis? Support for the government's housing policy has now slid down into single digits. Only eight per cent of Australians think the government is doing a good job on housing—eight per cent! Almost 90 per cent of people think the government should spend more money directly to build affordable housing, and three-quarters want to see rent caps introduced. One would expect that this would be a jolt to a sitting government. One would expect that these numbers would have the Prime Minister jumping into action and offering a housing policy that makes a real difference. But sadly, one would be wrong. We have a Prime Minister more interested in political argy-bargy than in ensuring people have a roof over their heads. The Greens have been clear about our demands from the start: more direct funding on the table to build public and affordable housing, rent caps and a rent freeze at the national level. People put us here for a reason: to make change, to ensure that we have a fair housing system and that we have a housing plan that makes sure there is a roof over everyone's head. The Greens haven't forgotten why we're here, but it seems that the Labor Party has. The Prime Minister is increasingly isolated in his refusal to amend Labor's flawed housing policy to meet the scale of the crisis. Over 80 housing organisations have called for the federal government to take the lead to end no-grounds evictions, to limit rent increases and to ensure enforcement of tenancy laws. In just four months, demand for homelessness services has risen by 7.5 per cent. We know people approach homelessness services when they are desperate for a roof over their head, when they simply cannot find anywhere to stay or when they are fleeing violence and abuse. Imagine being turned away at such a vulnerable point in your life because services are overstretched and dealing with unprecedented demand because the government is choosing not to tackle the scale of the investment that we need. People are burdened by exorbitant rents and unlimited rent rises. With no rental caps in place, many families are just one rent rise away from finding themselves homeless. Labor has completely abandoned renters. People are suffocating under the weight of government's inaction. Here we have a prime minister who won't even admit there's a housing crisis in this country. I would suggest Mr Albanese walk around in his own electorate to understand the scale of the crisis we face. I have spoken to people again and again, when the Greens have been doorknocking on the ground, and they want action. They want more than the inadequate HAFF. They want rent caps and more direct funding into affordable and public housing. The Prime Minister might as well get on radio tomorrow and tell renters: 'You're on your own, folks. You're on your own.' How pathetic! Stop pretending you don't have a choice, Prime Minister. You have a choice. You have the choice to work with the Greens. You have the choice to show some leadership at National Cabinet. The Greens will continue to fight for what is right. This is why people put us here, and we will never forget that. 16:14 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Time and time again we hear people—especially those in the Greens' corner of this place—proposing economic policies which would actually have the opposite impact to what they intend. The issue at the moment in terms of housing in this country is one of supply. We need more supply of housing. That is the only thing that is going to fix the issue, which Senator Faruqi, I acknowledge, is passionate about. It is the only thing that is going to fix the housing situation in this country at the moment—more supply. Sen 300706 Basic economics! Senator SCARR 282997 It is basic economics. I keep this book under my seat in this place. It's called Basic Economics. Let me quote from Basic Economics. You don't need to listen to me to tell you what is wrong with rent caps, price controls et cetera. It's been tried across the centuries, and in every single place it has been tried, it has failed—every single time. Every time. Let me quote from page 43 of my trusty handbook, Basic Economics: Rent control has effects on supply as well as on demand. Nine years after the end of World War II, not a single new apartment building had been built in Melbourne, Australia, because of rent control laws there which made such buildings unprofitable. That's in our own country. Did you know after World War II we had rent control in Melbourne, and for nine years not a single new residential apartment block was built in Melbourne—for nine years, until they got rid of rent control? That's Australia, but the same thing has happened all over the world. They had rent control in Egypt in 1960, and this is what an Egyptian woman who lived through that era said in 2006 about rent control: The end result was that people stopped investing in apartment buildings— who would have thought!— and a huge shortage in rentals and housing forced many Egyptians to live in horrible conditions … That's Egypt. Let's go to California. Senator SCARR 282997 Let's go to California, Senator McKim: After rent control was instituted in Santa Monica, California in 1979, building permits declined to less than one-tenth of what they were just five years earlier. People didn't build buildings. Why? Because they couldn't get the return on investment. Let's go to England and Wales: Under rent control in England and Wales, for example, privately-built rental housing fell from being 61 percent of all housing in 1947 to being just 14 percent by 1977. That was the impact of rent controls in England and Wales. It goes on and on and on. Let's go to Toronto, Canada— Senator SCARR 282997 Senator McKim, let's go to Canada: Within three years after rent control was imposed in Toronto in 1976, 23 percent of all rental units in owner-occupied dwellings were withdrawn from the housing market. Nearly a quarter of all buildings were withdrawn from the housing market in Canada in 1976 after they introduced rental control. We're actually seeing a manifestation of that in Australia at the moment. Many landlords are taking their houses or apartments out of the market because of interference with their ability to control their own properties. That's happening here today. That's the impact of overregulation in this space. What happens when you do the opposite? What happens when you get rid of rent control laws? We've got an example of that too. In Massachusetts, a statewide ban on local rent control laws in 1994 led to the construction of new apartment buildings in some formerly rent-controlled Massachusetts cities for the first time in 25 years. They got rid of rent control laws in Massachusetts, and for the first time in 25 years new supply came online. That's what happened in Massachusetts. This has been tried all over the world. It has never worked anywhere in the world. It is basic economics. The only way to solve the housing issue at the moment is to bring in more supply. That is the only way that the issue is going to be fixed. It is basic supply and demand. It is basic economics. That is the way the world works. There are those who may wish for it to be otherwise, but that is the way the market works. I say to those who are proposing it—with, I recognise, the best of intentions—the reality is the consequences of your policies don't necessarily reflect your intentions. This could in fact hurt the very people who you're seeking to help. 16:19 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Here we go again: another day, another political opportunity for the Greens political party to come into this chamber and grandstand about homelessness and housing insecurity. I have to say, I concur with my colleague Senator Scarr: what the Greens are suggesting will just not work. It is just the Greens trying to grandstand. That's what they've done, and to top it all off they've joined with the Liberals and the Nationals and Pauline Hanson and everyone from the Right in relation to stopping and not voting for our housing future fund. For those people out there in our communities who are homeless and who are looking for social and affordable housing, what they need is our legislation supported so we that can commence the build of the homes that are actually going to deal with homelessness. This political stunt of crying poor in relation to trying to tell the states what to do, knowing full well that the federal government has no power over the states in terms of trying to put a cap on rents. It doesn't work. It won't work. As usual, the Greens want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and they won't support the housing future fund. They would rather just make their own political statements and use it on their social media. We, as a government, have been listening to the experts, the stakeholders on the ground and those on the social housing waiting list. We are listening to them, and that's why it will be the Albanese Labor government that wants to get on with this job of implementing solutions around housing that actually will work. The Greens believe that they can somehow force voodoo economics on states without their permission—a sign of their voodoo politics. If it is not voodoo politics, it is about trying to create Utopia, which is not real and can't be delivered. They never have to deliver on any policy, let alone on housing. Senator McKim JKM A better world is not possible! Senator POLLEY e5x We hear the bleating from the corner, but they could actually do something about housing. They could actually achieve some outcomes for people who are homeless. For women and children who are fleeing domestic violence, they could actually do something about providing those desperately needed homes. But what do they do? They want to play politics, they want to join with the Right—the Nationals, the Liberals and the Pauline Hansons of the world—instead of ensuring that there are houses being built. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator POLLEY e5x There are interjections from my Green colleague from Tasmania. It is just amazing that he can sit in this chamber knowing how many Tasmanians are homeless and the issues that can happen when you support this legislation. We have already invested an extra $2 billion into housing. The Jacqui Lambie Network could see the writing on the wall. They jumped on board. They're putting Tasmanians' interests ahead of their own interests, unlike the Greens, who, again, like to get into bed with the Liberals and do their dirty deeds instead of voting for legislation that is actually going to achieve something—that is actually going to achieve outcomes for people who are homeless and living on our streets. In every town and city across this nation there are more and more homeless people. It's not just about the homeless individuals; it is actually about the families who are raising their children living in tents in Tasmania in the middle of the winter. It's about those families who are living in cars in a very insecure environment. The very least that we should be able to do is provide housing for our most vulnerable people in this country. We want to get on with the job. So I say to the Greens, I say to the Pauline Hanson, I say to the Nationals and I say to the Liberals: get out of the way and support legislation that is going to achieve the outcomes that are so desperately needed. We always know that there's more that can be done, but, instead of getting on board, getting this first tranche through, getting those 30,000 houses built across the country—then, if they still don't believe that enough has been done, we can build on that. But, as usual, the Greens act like little children: if they can't get what they want, they don't want to do it. They stamp their feet and say: 'If you're not going to play the game my way, we don't want to play at all. I'm going to take my bat and ball and go home.' Enough is enough. I am talking about real people that need our support. 16:24 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania The Greens talk about rent freezes and it sounds great. But what do you reckon happens when you suddenly can't make as much money renting your house out? Airbnb. That's what happens. That's what happened in Tasmania. Every rental property gets turned into an Airbnb and, instead of your rent freezing, you get kicked out. Tourists from Sydney will pay $500 to spend a weekend there instead of a family paying $500 a week to live there. The Greens are asking for rent freezes, but what they will get is towns where you can't afford to live because there's no place for you to live. The price of rent won't go down until we have more places to rent. That's supply. How do we increase supply? We build more homes. It's that simple. You don't get more homes by voting against more homes. You get more homes by voting in favour of the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill. We don't want freezes. We don't want caps. We don't want Airbnbs. We want homes. 16:25 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I am glad to be speaking on this matter of public importance because I agree with the essence of what Senator McKim is saying: housing is a really urgent and important issue. During Homelessness Week this week, we should all be doing our part to fight for the solutions. We should also be listening to the experts in this space. We should deliver housing for Australians, who are depending on us to get the job done. However, where we differ is that if I think an issue is important—as we all know housing is for Australians—then I want to take action. That's not by sending out another email to bolster support or by ranting and raving and posting another video on social media. When I think an issue is important, I take real action and so do the Albanese Labor government and our Labor senators, like any responsible elected representative should. As a relatively new senator, marking just over a year in this place, I am still getting used to the antics of other people here. The behaviour of the Greens when it came to housing was shocking to me at first, but now as it drags on still it becomes more and more disappointing. To spell it out, the Greens are a party that have teamed up with the Liberals and Nationals to shut down our plan to deliver housing for vulnerable Australians. It's a big shame—yes, I know. It's a party that refused to listen to the calls from housing organisations, pleading for them to listen to sense and pass the fund. Now that same party is using the words of those organisations to call for action on housing to try and claim this government isn't serious about housing. When talking with some of my colleagues about this issue, one person kindly referred to this behaviour as 'selective'. Well, I think it's just rank hypocrisy. They have done the numbers, cold and political, and they think there is still political value in withholding support. They know they can come in here and spin the narrative to position themselves as the savours of a crisis they are actively making worse. It's not good enough, and everyone in this place should hold themselves to a high standard. Labor knows people across Australia are struggling to pay the rent. We know there are valid concerns, and we are acting to address them. The Albanese government is delivering the first substantial increase in Commonwealth rent assistance in over 30 years, Senator McKim. We are improving tax arrangements to encourage the delivery of new built-to-rent homes. The National Housing and Homelessness Ministerial Council has been tasked with developing a proposal to strengthen renters' rights and to report back on options to improve tenancy laws. We have launched the submission and consultation phase of the National Housing and Homelessness Plan, which will be a 10-year strategy that outlines a shared national vision to inform future housing and homelessness policy. The solution to this problem many Australians are facing is supply. Yes, it's supply. That is the expert advice from the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council, and increasing supply is what the Albanese Labor government is committed to. We have already delivered a $2 billion social housing accelerator to the states to deliver new social housing rental homes across the country. This Labor government is committed to delivering affordable housing. That's why we have reintroduced the Housing Australia Future Fund. The $10 billion fund will increase the supply of new social and affordable homes. That's 30,000 of them in the first five years, with 4,000 of them reserved for women and children leaving family or domestic violence or older women experiencing or at risk of homelessness. I say to the Greens: if you think you're as green as you claim to be and if you're really concerned about housing and supporting renters, then support the Housing Australia Future Fund, because, honestly, Australians are sick and tired of having to wait and watch you play these political games rather than coming to the table and agreeing to support this important fund. 16:30 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Yesterday the Prime Minister suggested that he would have no trouble convincing National Cabinet to create a public holiday should the Matildas make the World Cup finals. He said: I'll be clearly putting the argument and I reckon they'll fold like tents. They will go one after the other. 'Fold like tents'—let's talk about tents. There are an ever-increasing number of people sleeping in tents currently—and in cars—and the problem is getting worse and worse. In my home town of Meanjin, or Brisbane, rents have skyrocketed. They're up by 23 per cent on what they were a year ago. My office has received countless calls and emails from people seeking housing support, all reporting that they are one of the 82 per cent of people that the Everybody's home report says are in rental stress, just one rent rise away from sleeping in a tent. Women are choosing to stay in violent and controlling relationships rather than fleeing into homelessness. They don't want their children spending cold winter nights in a tent, so they stay. Well, the Greens stand with the 90 per cent of people polled who want the government to spend more money to directly build affordable housing like we saw with the $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator. Let's see that every year—a direct build of housing. You've shown it can be done, so do it every year. We also stand with the 75 per cent of people who are calling for a national rent freeze and stronger renters' rights, coordinated through National Cabinet. Yet, on this matter of national importance, in the middle of an unprecedented rental crisis, the Prime Minister is saying that it's outside his power, that it would break the Federation, to negotiate with the states for a rent freeze. Public holidays are easily done, but a rent freeze—oh no, he can't do that. It is not good enough. Seventy-five per cent of people want a rent freeze. Eighty housing organisations are begging for it. It's time for the Prime Minister to get the job done. 16:32 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Rent is certainly an issue for Queenslanders. Listening across regional Queensland in recent weeks, what I heard most about rent controls was how much damage they do. A rent cap damages before it's introduced. The Greens announced they're pursuing rent caps, and landlords all over the country are now furiously putting up rents ready for the freeze. New homes are being let at higher rents for the same reason. Lease terms are being shortened so landlords will not be trapped in a lease that causes them a financial loss. A short lease gives them a chance to churn tenants or sell the property untenanted. The Greens will now characterise all of this as greed, because, in the finest traditions of communism, the Greens need to feed the people an enemy of the state to hate. So the Greens spun their Karl Marx chocolate wheel, and it landed on 'landlords'. In just starting this campaign, the Greens have made things worse. If Senator McKim wants to help, the best thing he can do is to join One Nation's campaign to reduce rents. Reduce our crazy high immigration rate to reduce demand and drop rents. Remove green and red tape from home construction materials and build our way to lower rents and higher homeownership. (Time expired) 16:33 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania When the Prime Minister was asked about the Greens' very straightforward request that he incentivise rent caps through National Cabinet, he said, 'That's something that can't be done.' But when he was asked about a national public holiday should the Matildas win the World Cup—and I sincerely hope they do—he said he'd get onto it next Wednesday: It'd be a pretty brave Australian state leader, wouldn't it, who said no to that. What a staggering juxtaposition that is, and it shows how unwilling Labor is to actually do something meaningful to help renters in this country. When there's a sporting bandwagon the Prime Minister wants to jump on, you'd better get out of his way, but, when people renting are being thrown onto the streets through no fault of their own, because they can't afford the rent in this era of skyrocketing rents, suddenly, 'Nothing can be done, it's too hard, not my problem,' says the Prime Minister. Well, Mr Albanese might as well have said, 'I don't hold a hose, mate.' Here are the facts: the Australian Labor Party is addicted to giving public subsidies to landlords and property speculators. Negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount are costing the budget $39 billion a year, 78 times what Labor is proposing to spend on its housing fund. By standing up to Labor, the Greens have already forced an extra $2 billion out of this government to spend on affordable housing. We stand with the 90 per cent of people polled recently who want Labor to spend more on public housing, and we stand with the 75 per cent—plus the 80 housing organisations—who want rent caps in this country now. 16:34 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria Our nation is in crisis. Cost of living is out of control—rents, mortgages and the rest. We all know that. It's breaking budgets. Families are hurting, and there is no relief in sight. Australians are suffering not because of a new phenomenon but because of a persistent and toxic cocktail of bad policy at federal, state and local levels. All levels are responsible. The obsession with cash handouts and adding layer upon layer of bureaucracy and red tape has led us to this crisis. It's basic economics. Nowhere in the world, nowhere in history, have price caps produced the desired outcome. The answer is not price controls. The answer is increasing supply by reducing bureaucratic and financial barriers to housing supply. The answer is entrepreneurship, the free movement of capital and, most importantly, government getting out of the way of the free market. 16:36 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I'm chairing the Senate's inquiry into the worsening rental crisis. As of today, we have received 10,734 submissions using the simplified submission forms to that inquiry. That tells you everything you need to know about how severe the rental crisis is and how people are concerned about it—over 10,000 submissions in just a couple of weeks. We also know, from opinion polling today, how people think the federal government are going with affordable housing. Do you know that two-thirds of the people surveyed think that the government's performance on affordable housing is below average or poor? Only seven per cent think it's excellent or above average. We are in a rental crisis. People are suffering. People are homeless. People are living in tents. People are living in cars. People are living with their babies in tents and cars. We know what needs to be done. We need to have a significant increase in the amount of housing stock, actually spend the billions of dollars a year—at least $2½ billion every year—to increase our stock of affordable houses, public and social housing, and we need to make unlimited rent increases illegal. We need caps on rents. We need freezes on rents so that people can afford to stay in the homes that they are living in, not be turfed out in the face of the biggest rental increases that we have seen in 35 years. It can be done. The Prime Minister got action on energy caps. The Prime Minister can bring the states and territories together and act to put rental caps in place. Come on, Anthony Albanese, listen to the people, listen to the community who are concerned about rents and act. 16:38 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Just this week the Prime Minister said, 'I have a National Cabinet meeting on next Wednesday, with all the premiers and chief ministers.' Apparently he was going to use this meeting to ensure they're all on the same page with something the community is crying out for, and, in the Prime Minister's words, when he puts the pressure on, 'They'll fold like tents.' If you guessed it was doing something about the rental crisis, though, you would be wrong. It's not about the cost of living either or interest rates or even the climate crisis. What's the Prime Minister showing national leadership on? It's about fighting for a new public holiday for the Matildas. We've long argued that more public holidays are good things for workers, and I think we all agree in this place that the Matildas' efforts at the World Cup so far have been extraordinary. But why does the Prime Minister's force of conviction, this resolve to bring the premiers on stage and get them to fold like tents, only apply to a sports team and not to the rental crisis that millions are currently facing across Australia? This morning I was briefed by Everybody's Home, who told me that four in five renters they surveyed were in housing stress. That's millions and millions of people across this country. And they, like us, are looking to the Albanese government to do something more than crow about a sporting victory—as inspiring as that is. They're looking to the Prime Minister to use leadership, to drag the premiers and the territory leaders across the line and to finally use his power and the authority of the Prime Minister's office to deliver for renters. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 The time for the discussion has now expired. Cost of Living 50 16:40 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 The Senate will now consider the proposal from Senator O'Sullivan: The Prime Minister said before the election that Australians will be better off under a Labor government; however, since the election, Australian families are paying more for their food, power prices have skyrocketed and have faced the highest scheduled mortgage payments in history. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of sena tors required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 16:40 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I'm pleased to present this matter of public importance, but I do so with a real sense of regret that this is the environment we are facing right now. The truth of the matter is we are facing the worst cost-of-living crisis this country has seen in over three decades, and it's being presided over by this government. Cost of living is the single biggest issue that Australians are facing every single day, yet those on the other side roll around each day looking for others to blame. They blame the Reserve Bank governor, they blame the Ukraine war, they blame the previous government. They continue to go on, other than taking responsibility for it themselves. Rather than seeking to fix spiralling inflation, this government pours fuel on the fire. It does nothing about its own fiscal policy while the RBA simultaneously is trying to address monetary policy. The government's actions add to upward inflation pressures; that's what the Reserve Bank has said. This is the reality. During a cost-of-living crisis when inflation is rampant, no-one is a winner. High inflation is not selective; it affects every aspect of society. Everyone is facing this cost-of-living crisis. ABS data shows an annual rise in food prices of between seven and eight per cent, and an annual rise in utilities of between 12 and 14 per cent. That's what Australians are facing. Every time they go down to the grocery store they're seeing those rising costs, and it's affecting them. They're having to make some really tough choices. Every time that utility bill arrives in the mail and they open it up, they're seeing significant increases. And this government is all talk but no action. It is not addressing the fundamental issues of this cost-of-living crisis. The Australian Financial Review reported today that more than one in 10 firms in the retail, hospitality and construction sectors are at risk of going bankrupt in the next 12 months as high interest rates and consumer slowdown heap pressure on company finances. That is awful because that means jobs in these important industries. People working in retail and people working in hospitality are finding it difficult. These businesses are finding it difficult. The cost-of-living crisis is biting at the heels of the retail industry. We've seen Myer report today that their growth has ground to a halt. They saw double-digit growth figures in the first half of last financial year, and their growth has only increased by 0.4 per cent in the last six months. This is happening across retail. It's happening across hospitality. Anyone running a hospitality business will tell you this; you go into the cafes across our cities, across our regional towns, and you will see that they are struggling. People are having to make tough choices. They're choosing between discretionary funding and paying their mortgage. That's what's happening—and this is on your watch, Labor. At 4.1 per cent, interest rates are currently the highest they've been since 2011. Families are hurting, and this government, sadly, is asleep at the wheel. The impact of inflation and rising interest rates is being felt by businesses and families across Australia. Rising mortgage payments, rising prices at the checkout and rising energy bills are all eating away at already tight household budgets. This quarter alone, 150,000 people are moving from fixed rates to variable rates. We are facing a cliff here, and this government is not doing enough to address it. They're putting fuel on the fire. It cannot continue. This government is away at sea when it comes to addressing the fundamentals of our economy, particularly in the area of productivity. You don't ever hear the government talk about productivity. You never hear that word come from the Prime Minister's mouth, yet it's the single most important thing that needs to be addressed to address this cost-of-living crisis. You keep putting fuel on the fire by increasing government spending and you're not doing anything to address productivity, which we know would put downward pressure on inflation. 16:45 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria The claims that this government is doing nothing to address the cost-of-living challenge that Australians are facing are absolutely outrageous, so I welcome the opportunity to describe to you some of the measures that the government is putting in place—many of which have been opposed by those opposite—to help Australian families deal with the rising cost of living and the challenges that they faced from those opposite after 10 years of a do-nothing government. We are a government that is doing exactly what we said we would do. We are not only committed to reducing the cost of living; we have already taken action. We're making medicines cheaper and we are strengthening Medicare. We cut the price of PBS scripts from the start of this year. Do you know what this could mean for the average family that might have two or three scripts? That's a saving of up to $450 a year. We've tripled the bulk-billing incentive, making the largest investment in this since Medicare began. This is just what is already happening. From 1 September, those medicines that can be prescribed for 60 days will save people up to $180 a year. We know household bills are rising due to international inflation pressures—pressures that we're seeing around the world. That's why we've taken action. Our energy price caps are reducing wholesale electricity prices by up to 50 per cent. Over five million households and one million small businesses will receive targeted electricity bill rebates. We're supporting those families that are struggling with cost-of-living pressures. We've expanded paid parental leave to six months by 2026. We're investing in making early childhood education more affordable. Ninety-six per cent of families will be better off under these changes. We're investing in the skills and training Australians need without the cost, delivering 480,000 fee-free TAFE places. As just one example, a Victorian early childhood education student can now save nearly $9,000 on their training. Importantly, we are getting wages moving again in this country. We supported the largest boost to award wages in a generation, an increase for roughly 2.7 million workers across the country. We've funded a 15 per cent wage increase for aged-care workers. Wages are growing under Labor at their highest level in over 10 years. Of course, this is no coincidence. In the last decade, we saw a government that left people behind. Not only did they have no plan to address the cost of living; they seemed intent on raising it. The Australian people don't need reminding of what occurred under the former coalition government, but it sounds like those opposite do. Let's not forget that this was a government that wanted to charge a $7 GP tax. This was a government that tried to increase the cost of medicines by $5 and wanted to start charging for emergency department visits as well. Under the coalition, early childhood education costs rose by a staggering 49 per cent. In nearly a decade, there was no increase at all to the number of weeks of paid parental leave available to families. Just in case the memories of those opposite are selective, let me quote directly. The member for Farrer described fee-free TAFE as a 'waste of taxpayer dollars'. Those opposite described those low wages as a 'deliberate design feature' of their government's policy. And they of course opposed a $1 per hour increase to the minimum wage. They haven't learnt their lesson. Since we've come to government, they've voted against $1.5 billion in energy bill relief. They've proposed allowing millions of Australians to buy two months worth of medicine for the price of a single prescription before the details were even announced. They've said no to more social and affordable housing, including for women and children fleeing family violence. Rather than moving motions to politically grandstand, how about those opposite actually support policies that will reduce the cost of living? We're working every day to make Australian lives better, delivering secure jobs, better wages and addressing the cost of living. 16:50 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia We have to start with some myth busting again. Pretty much every time we talk about the cost of living in this place we have to start with some myth busting because those opposite can't help but roll out the mistruths that real wages grew under the last coalition government. It was a slow increase, I will knowledge, but a sustainable increase. Whereas, under this Labor government, they have plummeted in the face of high inflation. Real wages are declining, and every Australian who receives a pay packet knows it, because they know the cost of living is going up faster than their wages. They've seen their mortgage payments absolutely skyrocket in the last 12 months. They've seen the cost of their grocery bills absolutely skyrocket in the last 12 months. And, in this period of high inflation, yes, wages have gone up, but they haven't kept up with the cost of living. Real wages have gone backwards, and that's because we have a Labor government that doesn't have a clue about how to manage the economy. When talking about cost-of-living pressures, they roll out a few things that they supposedly have done in this space. We hear about pharmaceuticals, yet the pharmacies out there are absolutely horrified by what this Labor government has done in the industry, and now we are seeing patient groups recognising the damage done by this Labor government in the pharmaceutical space, and they are coming out to oppose that policy as well. The Labor government trumpeted their childcare changes, yet most parents out there know that childcare costs and availability have gotten worse not better under this government. And they trumpeted what they've done in the energy space, whereas, in actual fact, all they have really done in the energy space is frighten away foreign investment, deter new energy suppliers coming into the market, particularly gas coming into the market. That will, over time, force up the cost of energy even more. I ask you, if you're listening to this out there, to look at your energy bills over the past 14 months under this Labor government. They haven't come down, and you know they haven't come down. When the Labor Party stands up in this place and trumpets what it has supposedly done to bring down the pressure on energy prices, every Australian just has to look after their energy bill to know that that is a mistruth, and Australians will judge that harshly. 16:53 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak on this matter of public importance, and it is true that the government has not been able to address the cost of living. In fact, the government has increased the cost of living since its election some 15 months ago. That is most notable in relation to the cost of a mortgage, which, for many Australian families, is more than $1,000 extra a month. They're having to find that in what is already a high inflationary environment where the basics are more expensive than they were just a year ago. The question is: what is it that the government can do here? Many people bring their grievances into these chambers, and it's not always clear to me what exactly they're asking the government itself to do. What actually is the government in control of? The government is in control of its fiscal policies. It can set its budget. It can run its affairs in relation to how it engages with the central bank, which runs monetary policy. On the issue of fiscal policy, that is where I think the government has gone wrong. They have made decisions in their two budgets to increase expenditure when economists and the experts have been calling for spending restraint. The government have decided to spend more money. Now that is, through the budget, causing inflation to increase. But the government has also been fond of establishing off-budget funds, which the International Monetary Fund has warned are increasing the risk of inflation in Australia. The reality is, here, that inflation is running higher in Australia than it is in many comparable countries, including the United States, because the Australian government has decided to run an expansionary fiscal policy. There's some debate about whether that is a neutral policy. The only reason it could credibly be regarded as a neutral stance is because of the hilarious energy caps, which is effectively the government legislating away inflation. If it was that easy, then you would just pass a law that says we're going to have no more inflation. The idea that that is the fiscal position of the country is laughable. That is one thing the government can control. The other thing the government can control is the way it engages with the central bank. The government have decided to engage in a lot of 1990s style interference with the Reserve Bank by ending Philip Lowe's term. They spent a lot of time campaigning against Philip Lowe, sending their backbenchers out to attack Philip Lowe personally for doing his job. Then, of course, the axe fell on Mr Lowe. There was a public debate about whether the government would appoint a Treasury official or maybe someone from the unions, who knows, to run the Reserve Bank, which is reminiscent of the 1990s experience. We've seen two decades of independence, not interference, in terms of the Reserve Bank. The government have interfered massively here. They have now decided to appoint Michele Bullock, who I think will be a very fine governor, and I welcome her appointment. But it's the way that you do things that counts. There was a bit of a try-on there for a while, a bit of a sense that maybe they were trying to cow or bully the Reserve Bank and punish them for doing their job, because, of course, the Reserve Bank in raising interest rates is doing the heavy lifting that the government has not been prepared to do. The government should be running a contractionary fiscal policy. That's what the government should be doing. I know it's hard to cut spending, but ultimately, the least you can do is not agree to new spending, which is where we are with this government and $42 billion in new expenditure taken in decisions in this budget estimates period. Ultimately, that is the position we are in. The government have decided to spend more money than they need to, and that is fuelling inflation. That is causing the Reserve Bank to increase interest rates, and that is causing mortgage costs to be higher than they should be and certainly much higher than they have been under the Liberal Party. At the end of the day, Labor is playing to its true colours. It is making mortgages more expensive, and the cost of living is much harder. 16:58 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland During the 2022 election campaign, the now Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, promised my Queensland constituents that life would be easier under Labor, a metaphorical land of milk and honey. I think the Prime Minister oversold his policies by a football field or two. Milk and honey have turned out to be baked beans on toast, except baked beans are up 50 per cent, so it's more bread and margarine. Except margarine is up 40 per cent, and supermarket bread is up from $1.90 a loaf to $2.70 a loaf. That loaf of bread is made from 98 per cent Australian ingredients purchased from Australian farmers on a long-term supply agreement. The government cannot blame the war in Ukraine for price rises on a product made here. I do, however, know where to place that blame. The Australia Institute has correctly pointed out that our supermarket oligopoly is exploiting their market share to rip off consumers for record profits. The government has not acted on supermarket or petrol profiteering, despite having the power to do so, and the ACCC is asleep at the wheel. Manufacturers' costs have increased, especially thanks to the UN 2050 net zero madness that started under the previous Liberal government and is now pursued enthusiastically by the champagne socialists on the left in the Labor party. Closing down cheap base-load coal power and replacing it with unreliable and expensive wind and solar has forced up electricity prices along the entire supply chain. Farmers' cool rooms and packing sheds are costing more to light and to refrigerate. Warehouses are more expensive. Supermarket fridges are more expensive. One Nation know, because we listen around the country, that every problem in this country is due to excessive government, especially central government. We know the solutions are with the people. Set the people free from this UN rubbish and we'll get everything right. 17:00 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales We're all very aware of the challenges in the economy across the world and right here at home. When we start talking about those challenges, we've got to listen to what those on the opposite side say about what it actually means for the fight ahead against some of those challenges and how we actually tackle them. But you've also got to put it in perspective because there was a perspective given by Peter Dutton last year about some of those same challenges where he was a lot more honest than he is being now. He spoke about the hard economic challenges in the times ahead. On Sunrise on 8 February 2022 he said: … over the next couple of years … we are going to have headwinds economically, as you know. He went on to say: … we have to be again realistic about what's happening economically over the coming years. That was on the Today show on 5 April 2022. He went on to say: I think if you look at what's happening in the United States at the moment, where inflation's at seven per cent, a similar story in parts of Europe, I think we need to really be realistic about the economic risks on the horizon. That was on Sky News on 24 April 2022. Political opportunism is one thing, but then you start saying, 'What have they supported to make a difference on cost of living?' We know the difference they've made: they've made no difference, because every time a proposition has been put forward about dealing with the cost-of-living pressures on hardworking Australians and those doing it tough they've voted it down. We know that their strategy was always to have low wages. That was a deliberate design feature of those opposite. We know that the Liberal and National parties are for low wages. But who would have thought they'd oppose a dollar-per-hour increase in the minimum wage? Don't worry—they said that before the election and they've kept that tune after the election. When we started putting policies forward to give people the opportunity to deal with the cost-of-living pressures and looking at realistic and fair wage increases, they said no. What did Mr Dutton say? He said it was because it was going to increase wages. He said specifically, 'It's going to result in high wages if we support the secure jobs and better pay bill.' Again and again, they are always opposed. They said no to banning pay secrecy clauses and the efforts to close the gender pay gap. That's because, again, they don't want all those people on salaries to get better wages to deal with those challenges. Let's look at some of the more detailed government policies we have put forward. There was a tripling of bulk-billing incentives from the Albanese government. There's been the largest investment in bulk-billing incentives ever to take some pressure off the cost of living. We're reducing the cost of medicines by up to half for at least six million people. Those opposite are the same people who wanted to charge a $7 GP tax. They tried to increase the cost of medicines by $5. They wanted to charge for emergency department visits. They were opposed to allowing millions of Australians to buy two months worth of medicine for the price of a single prescription before details were even announced. They refused to back patients. That's what the previous government did, and that's what they're doing in opposition. They're undermining the opportunity for people to be able to get by and deal with the cost-of-living challenges. When you start dealing with the cost of living, one of the smart things you do is you also look at investment so that we can get productivity up. A smart area to do that, because of the dismal failure we've had for over a decade in productivity building capacity within our economy—what do we do? We turn around and come up with a great policy, a policy we took to the election, supported by the community, to have free TAFE. There are 480,000 fee-free TAFE places. Not only is it a cost-of-living exercise, it's also an exercise to make sure we get productivity. We invest in Australians. What do they do? Sussan Ley, the deputy opposition leader, said fee-free TAFE is a waste of taxpayers money. They're against skills. They're against the minimum wage being increased. Don't get me onto housing, because they're against $10 billion being spent on some of the most disadvantaged people in our community. They're against energy controls. These people have no sense about what's in the interest of Australia. 17:05 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I too support this matter of public importance put forward by Senator O'Sullivan. The past 15 months under the Albanese government has been reminiscent of the movie Apocalypse Now. We've got Prime Minister Albanese, a bit like Marlon Brando as Colonel Walter Kurtz at the end, painting his face with the Voice and being distracted while his other colonel, Colonel Kilgore—Jim Chalmers—is out there saying he loves the smell of poverty in the morning. He loves the smell of homelessness. That's what we've had under the Albanese government, 15 months of sheer horror. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Sorry, Senator Rennick, I have Senator McAllister on her feet. Sen 121628 I think senators understand that, firstly, we ought to refer to people in the other place by their correct titles and, secondly, we ought not reflect, and particularly reflect inaccurately in specific ways, on the motivations and attitudes of other senators. I do think Senator Rennick has transgressed both of those requirements. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 I'll remind Senator Rennick of your request. Senator Rennick, you have the call. Senator RENNICK 283596 Sorry, Senator McAllister, I'm not quite sure what I was saying there. I was just throwing a bit of colour into the MPI this afternoon, a bit of alliteration and metaphor. I know you guys like to keep it all drib and drab, but we'll push back on the fact— A government senator interjecting— Senator RENNICK 283596 I know you don't like it, but the fact of the matter is Australians are doing it tough. They're doing it tough because the Albanese government have no idea of what they are doing. They are running a high immigration rate when we have got a rental crisis. At the same time, they're cutting back on infrastructure. Why would you cut back on infrastructure spending if you're having more people coming into the country? You would think you would need more dams. You would think you would need more reliable baseload energy. A government senator interjecting— Senator RENNICK 283596 No, no, no. What the Albanese government is doing is it's wasting money on renewable projects. It's wasting money on the Voice that is a complete and utter distraction from the real issues in this country, which is cost of living. We've had a Prime Minister that has been out of the country probably more than any other Prime Minister in history. He's been running around, gallivanting around the world big-noting himself with the globalists instead of dealing with the hardship here. Hardship brought about by a government that is effectively, through high immigration, high interest rates—they haven't actually expanded the volume of money in the system, which is what the 1937 banking royal commission said that we should do to control supply. No, no, no. They're not dealing with any supply-side issues whatsoever. All they are doing—actually, I'll take that back. They are. They're restricting supply by cutting back on infrastructure. I know that those on the other side mightn't like to hear that, but the fact of the matter is they don't have any answers. What they want to do, rather than deal with and provide solutions to the problems that they've created, is to distract us with things like the Voice, which is going to be a complete and utter waste of time. We don't even know what the date of the Voice is. I wish you guys would get on with it, because the sooner we can get rid of the Voice and get that over and done with, the sooner we can move on to the real issue, which is the cost of living. Prime Minister Albanese still hasn't been able to explain to the Australian people why before the election he said he would cut energy prices by $275. Has he done that? No, he has not done that. Energy prices went up by $700 by June 30 this year, and then the energy companies have come out and said they're going to increase power prices by another 30 per cent. Why is that? I'll tell you why that is. That is because of the obsession of the Labor Party and their friends in the Greens with unreliable and unrecyclable energy—otherwise known as renewables, but that's actually a misnomer. As we've seen recently, we've got these wind turbines stuck in the forests of North Queensland. They want to build more of these wind turbines. They're going to destroy our environment. They're going to destroy people's disposable income. Then we've got this whole issue where we can't get people into houses. We cannot build enough houses in this country. And what's Labor's solution to this? They are going to continue to increase superannuation—to lift that superannuation levy to 12 per cent by 2025. I'm calling on the Labor Party to actually cut superannuation. Cut it back to six per cent, or, if you like, you can split it in half now: five per cent optional, five per cent compulsory. Will you do that? That will let people keep a little bit more of their hard-earned wages. We know Labor loves to steal wages. Superannuation is wage theft: it takes money from the battlers and gives it to the elites in their ivory towers in Sydney and Melbourne, and that's not on. So, Senator McAllister, if you want to get all picky and choosy about my reflections, I suggest you forget that. It's merely a deflection. You need to get on and focus on the cost of living. (Time expired) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 The time for this discussion has expired. DOCUMENTS 55 DOCUMENTS Consideration 55 PETITIONS 55 PETITIONS Oil and Gas Exploration 55 17:12 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory by leave—I table two nonconforming petitions. One, signed by 2,281 health professionals, calls on the Albanese government to withdraw its $1.5 billion support for the Middle Arm petrochemical precinct. The other has been signed by 507 families in the NT and calls on all parliamentarians to withdraw funding for Middle Arm and highlights the health impacts of fracking and chemical processing. COMMITTEES 56 COMMITTEES Public Works Joint Committee 56 Report 56 17:13 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania I present the fifth report of 2023 of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. BILLS 56 BILLS Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards Amendment (Administrative Changes) Bill 2023 56

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

Explanatory Memorandum 56 17:13 Senator 121628 New South Wales McALLISTER (—) (): I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to the Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards Amendment (Administrative Changes) Bill 2023. The addendum responds to matters raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. In tabling it, can I thank the committee for their constructive engagement on this matter. COMMITTEES 56 COMMITTEES Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee 56 Membership 56 17:14 Senator McALLIST 121628 New South Wales ER (—) (): by leave—I move: That Senator Shoebridge replace Senator Steele-John on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for the committee's inquiry into the Defence Capability Assurance and Oversight Bill 2023 and Senator Steele-John be appointed as a participating member. Question agreed to. BILLS 56 BILLS Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023 56

Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023

Returned from the House of Representatives 56 COMMITTEES 56 COMMITTEES Environment and Communications References Committee 56 Reference 56 17:15 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Acting Deputy President, I draw your attention to the state of the chamber. (Quorum formed) 17:17 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I move my motion relating to the establishment of a Senate inquiry into the Middle Arm project in the Northern Territory: That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 28 November 2023: The Middle Arm Industrial Precinct, with particular reference to: (a) the development of Darwin's Middle Arm Industrial Precinct, the role and funding intentions of the Northern Territory and Commonwealth governments; (b) the likely and intended future uses on the site, as well as the industries and supply chains that would benefit from those plans; (c) any climate, environmental or health impacts as a result of developing the harbour and the industries seeking to establish themselves at Middle Arm; (d) the conduct, process and implications of the proposed strategic environmental assessment for Middle Arm; (e) engagement and advocacy by industries and their representatives throughout the Middle Arm proposal, including with First Nations groups and communities and adherence to the principles of free, prior and informed consent; and (f) any other related matters. This particular reference is one that has previously been proposed by the Environment and Communications References Committee, in our majority report into the Beetaloo basin back in April this year. Today we are discussing the direct terms of reference for the establishment of this inquiry, an inquiry into a project that this government has proposed and on which it has budgeted to spend $1½ billion. Why, you might ask, wouldn't the government just let this go through? It's an inquiry into spending $1.5 billion of taxpayers' money, so surely any type of big budget item like this needs to be considered properly, thoroughly scrutinised and indeed looked at closely by the Senate. That's why we are moving this motion for this inquiry today. The Albanese government have a choice to make, a choice for basic integrity and scrutiny in the public interest, as of course they were elected to do and we hear time and time again that they stand for it, or is the government going to take the path of more greenwashing, cover-ups and climate-wrecking pollution? This is the choice that the Labor government and the Prime Minister, Mr Albanese, must make today when they consider whether or not to keep their commitment to this inquiry, to look at this project and to allow the public and the experts to have a say over exactly what this project needs. Will the Labor government backflip, break the promise and deny the ability for this Senate, the chamber of scrutiny, to indeed look at this particular issue? It's $1.5 billion of taxpayer money which, as it stands today, will expand gas and fracking and help open up the gas fields in the Beetaloo basin. It will supercharge the climate bomb. It will cook the climate. Of course it should be scrutinised because it's public money, but it also needs serious consideration because of the climate impact, environmental impact and health impact that this project will cause. As I said at the outset, back in April this year, only several months ago, the Labor government, including members in this place, backed the establishment of this very inquiry into the Middle Arm gas project. It was recommendation 2 of the Beetaloo report, which every member of the Labor government who was on that committee backed. They signed their names to it and supported it. It was a commitment that was made to the Senate and a commitment that was made to the public back in April, only a few months ago. So what has changed? What's changed here? Why this change of heart from the Labor government? Why this change of heart from Labor senators in this place? Because of the gas lobby? Fossil fuel donors? The scare campaign of the fossil fuel industry? Your guess, Mr Acting Deputy President, is as good as mine. But it's pretty obvious, isn't it? They made a promise one day and it was broken the next. I thought they would be better. I thought this government came in on the premise that that type of backflipping, that type of breaking of promises and that type of flip-flopping was something to be left behind with the old style of coalition and Morrison government. Apparently not, unless of course we see a flip again and the Labor government do the right thing today and back this inquiry. The commitment to investigate and to allow the Senate, community and experts to look at what the Middle Arm project means is important. It matters because, despite the attempted greenwashing about sustainable development—let's be very clear about this—the Middle Arm precinct will enable the expansion of fossil fuels. We know this because one of the very companies who want to frack the Beetaloo basin have put it up in lights to the ASX. They have said: 'We can keep going. We can frack. We can open up. We can create a big new gas field because this government is going to allow us to export our gas, our pollution, overseas.' The reason this all matters is because we are, right now, in a climate crisis. We know what is happening. The planet is warming. In fact the United Nations have described the planet as 'already boiling'; we are at global boiling point. And what makes all of this worse? More gas, more coal, more fossil fuels. The world's entire expertise on climate and pollution agree, and the global energy experts agree, that if we want to arrest the most dangerous elements of the climate crisis and global warming we must stop expanding fossil fuels. We cannot have one more new project, let alone a project that is going to pollute so much that it increases Australia's emissions by 11 per cent—that is just one project, the Beetaloo basin, that's going to use this Middle Arm precinct. Despite all the greenwashing in relation to this particular precinct, documents reported by the ABC show that the Northern Territory government described the project as 'a new gas demand centre', at a time when we need to get off gas, stop pollution and stop making things worse. Where is all this gas going to go? It's going to get shipped off overseas and burnt, and the climate crisis is going to get worse. Make no mistake: the Middle Arm gas precinct is about the expansion of fossil fuels and creating more money and more profit for the gas industry. This is about gas and fracking, and nothing more. There are a number of people in the building today, as we heard during question time, wanting to talk to their local members of parliament, wanting to talk to their senators and wanting to talk to the government about the very real impact that this Middle Arm project and precinct is going to have not just on the health of the environment but on the health of the community. Under pressure from those community advocates and doctors in the building today, the Prime Minister himself stood up in question time and tried to make us all believe that this project that the Northern Territory government themselves say is a gas demand centre isn't about gas at all; it's only about solar and the export of solar power. Have you ever heard such rubbish? Have you ever heard such a blatant, terrible, ham-fisted attempt at greenwashing? The Northern Territory government themselves say that this is a gas demand centre, at a time when we need to reduce gas, get off gas and stop pollution. I know there are good people in the government, on the government benches, who are vehemently opposed to the Middle Arm precinct, who are disappointed that every time they want to stand up in caucus or stand up in their local community and say, 'Enough is enough; the Labor Party has to be serious about climate action,' they get walked over. They get told to sit down and be quiet. It must be incredibly frustrating. But what frustrates me more is that three or four months ago, this lot, over here in government, said they would allow this inquiry to go ahead. We're not asking for the government to make a decision to scrap the Middle Arm precinct today or to not spend $1.5 billion today. All we are asking today is for the Senate to be able to do its job, to inquire, to investigate, to gather expertise, to hear the views of the local community and to consider all the impacts of this project properly. There are serious questions about the economics of the Middle Arm precinct—not just the climate impacts but whether this is even going to stack up economically. A report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis has said that they have serious concerns about the economic risk of this project. So not only do the scientists have a concern; the economists have a concern. Meanwhile, who doesn't? Who is saying: 'Yay! Okay! Let's open the floodgates. Let's set up the new gas field in the Beetaloo. Let's destroy and pollute more with the Barossa gas field'? The only people pushing for this project in this manner are the fossil fuel criminals. The fossil fuel industry have their hands out again for more public money to keep doing what we know is destroying the environment and wrecking the planet. They can't even pay for it themselves. That's $1½ billion of taxpayer money plus hundreds of millions of dollars more in other forms of subsidies. The gas industry can't even stand on their own two feet. They're only kept upright because, time after time after time, state and federal governments give them a cash handout. Talk about corporate welfare. We can't afford—we hear over and over again from this government—to help people who are actually in a cost-of-living crisis. We can't lift people out of poverty, we can't fund free dental care, we can't fund free child care and we can't fund our hospitals properly, but we can afford, apparently, $1½ billion of taxpayers' money to keep the fossil fuel industry afloat. Even on the sheer economics this project doesn't stack up. I've said very little about the coalition and the Liberal and National parties in this debate so far, and here is why: we know they care zilch about the climate impacts. We know the front bench of Peter Dutton's party is riddled with climate deniers. But here is the clincher. Do you really think the taxpayer should be funding $1½ billion for something that Labor members themselves say they have a problem with. 17:33 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland It will be of no surprise that the coalition won't be supporting this committee referral, for a very long list of reasons. Probably the most important one is that the entire argument for holding this committee is based on misinformation, lies and hysterical activism. It in no way supports the future of Australia, whether it be economically, environmentally or for the taxpayers and those Australians who enjoy great jobs, which fund their lifestyles and the First World life that we have in this country. The coalition has never made any secret of the fact that, once we were sufficiently informed about the Middle Arm sustainable project and the potential costs in this development, we have been very supportive of it. That is because the Middle Arm project is incredibly important for the Northern Territory and for Australia as a whole. There has been an enormous amount of work undertaken in relation to the interactions between economic and environmental considerations in the creation and operation of this project, and this is the bit that I think is completely missing so far in this debate. There's a lack of understanding about the role that the Beetaloo gas project, in particular, can play in reducing emissions, in improving the quality of life for people in the Northern Territory and, yes, in increasing the royalties and company taxes and PAYG taxes that these industries provide to Australians. The Greens talk about who's going to fund more medical care and more social security. Guess who it is? It's mining and resource projects. Over $38 billion worth of wages and salaries are paid to Australians by those companies. The vast majority of environmental projects in this country are paid for by resources projects. Forty per cent of Australia's corporate tax is paid for by resource companies. PRRT is already nearly $2 billion in the last financial year, which is paid for by offshore gas projects. The bit that the Greens will never talk to you about is that it is these projects that pay the bills for Australians. It is these projects that allow us the luxury of having these conversations. And the Northern Territory, a jurisdiction that is desperate to raise its people up and to provide greater services, desperately needs the taxes and PAYG jobs that these projects through the Middle Arm development will provide. In our years in government we took a leading role in assessing and progressing the Middle Arm precinct. In April 2022, we announced a $1.5 billion commitment to the project, which was subsequently matched by the Labor Party. Our decision came after careful and comprehensive consideration more than a year after the project was included in the national Infrastructure Priority List. That consideration included embedding a clear focus at the precinct on advancing, in the words of the Northern Territory government, 'low emission hydrocarbons, green hydrogen, advanced manufacturing, carbon capture and storage and minerals processing'. We absolutely cannot move to a lower-emissions, higher-energy economy and environment unless we bring on projects like this. There is absolutely no way to do it. There is no way that we can bring online the scale of renewables that is proposed by the Greens in the time frame that will allow us to support lithium processing projects, rare earths projects and critical minerals projects. It is an absolute fantasy to be trying to stop important gas projects which will allow us to have reliable and affordable energy in the foreseeable future. It makes me very nervous about what would happen if we removed those industries. If the Greens were successful and there were no more new projects, who would pay the bills? Who would pay the bills for Australia? Who will pay the company taxes? Senator Hanson-Young I0U The taxpayers are paying the bills for the fossil fuel industry. The ACTING DEPUTY 217241 Order! Senator McDONALD 123072 The resources industry, broadly, is paying huge company taxes, PRRT payments and $38 billion of wages in this country. If it was up to the Greens, we would be living under trees with absolutely no services at all. Senator Hanson-Young I0U Profits are going overseas. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Senator Hanson-Young! Senator McDONALD 123072 For every Australian mum and dad who has shares in these businesses through their super funds and who are benefiting in their retirement from their businesses, this is exactly the kind of financial security that the Greens would rip out from underneath them. Moral grandstanding about Australia's fossil fuel industries, coal and gas, may make some people feel better about themselves, but shutting down our industries will have exactly the opposite effect to the one they claim they want, because, if Australia withdraws from exporting our high-quality coal and gas, global emissions will rise. The Beetaloo basin has some of the lowest-emissions gas in the world. When we don't produce it, countries like Malaysia and Vietnam, who are building LNG import terminals, will go to Qatar and the US to buy gas. They will not be building the number of solar panels and wind farms that the Greens would like us to have, because that cannot support them. That cannot provide the reliable, affordable energy that they absolutely demand. So Australia has a clear choice. We either adopt the European model of energy security, offshoring our energy security, or we adopt the US model and make ourselves energy secure. The Middle Arm precinct is a part of that. The Middle Arm precinct will allow for the development of important gas basins like the Beetaloo. The gas will either come east and south down the pipeline or, yes, be exported. But, either way, lower-emissions gas is better for worldwide emissions. The Beetaloo Sub-basin is one of the largest undeveloped onshore gas resources in the world, and development of this resource has the potential to create 6,000 jobs by 2040. It would transform the Northern Territory's economy and supply gas into domestic markets for decades to come. One petajoule of gas can power 19,000 homes for a year, and the Beetaloo has approximately 200,000 petajoules of potential supply. When you don't develop supply, like Victoria, you see the result of that. The results there are coming home to roost. The last thing we need is more bans and more moratoriums. The coalition strongly support more gas production more widely. In government we committed $108 million to deliver on this gas-fired recovery. That is a fraction of the royalties, company taxes and PAYG taxes paid by this industry. The idea that the taxpayer is funding the fossil fuel industries, gas and coal, is just not true. That is a fraction of the income that this country receives from that industry. Senator McDONALD 123072 Read the budget. The risk of hysterical activism to our economy and to our environmental standing is incredibly dangerous. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Senator Hanson-Young, please. It's a nice day. Senator McDONAL 123072 But what do we hear from the Greens and the teals? And, be clear, they're in partnership on this. We hear hysterical language: 'global boiling'. We've moved from global warming to global boiling. Next we'll be just pure evaporation. Despite the Greens and teals presenting themselves as fair and reasonable, it is hypocritical—their scare campaigns and their lack of understanding of the sheer economics and environmental outcomes that this country is trying to manage. They don't have real solutions to the cost-of-living issues facing Australians and, despite skyrocketing energy bills, instead want to turn off affordable, reliable traditional energy in order to make a few feel better about themselves. Instead of engaging constructively, they have come here today to try and damage Australia's prosperity, to damage the Northern Territory's economic future and to shut down this critical infrastructure project. Middle Arm will deliver thousands of permanent high-skilled jobs in new and emerging industries. It is set to bring billions of dollars to the Northern Territory and federal economies and continue generating wealth for our country, yet the teals and the Greens want to throw all of this away. I say to Territorians: be very afraid, because this is proof that the Greens and the teals are coming after your jobs. They don't support these foundational industries. They grandstand for the sake of grandstanding. And I say to anyone who works in the resources sector across Australia—that's all 1.1 million of you, the 1.1 million Australians who are directly employed by resources industries—that the Greens and the teals are coming for you too, because when there are energy and electricity shortages and the new mines that are on track cannot meet their safeguard targets and we cannot develop processing for critical minerals like lithium and rare earths, where do you think the investment will go? It won't go here. It will not go to Australia. We are already seeing investment decisions being made that preference Alaska and Canada over Australia. Qatar is eating our lunch and filling our export markets. It is critical that we continue to press back against the fearmongering and scare campaigns that come from these groups, because they will damage Australia. They will ensure that our children don't have any future at all, because we will hand over our responsibilities for being high-standard managers of resources projects—something that we are incredibly good at in this country. We will offshore those responsibilities to countries with higher emissions and with less high standards for work force, for the environment and for tax payments. We will offshore those responsibilities to someone who does a worse job, and Australians will be left the poorer for it. We stand at a turning point and we have a very clear choice: do we continue to allow these hysterical claims that will damage Australia economically and environmentally to continue coming from the Greens and the teals, or do we say enough of your hysterics? Step back, because we know that it is from these projects that Australians receive the taxes to pay for our health system, our education system, the NDIS, schools, roads and hospitals. That is our choice, and the coalition says: 'We will not allow this to go on.' We say enough. We will protect Australians. We will protect Australians' jobs and we will protect Australian standards of living. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 ( ) : Senator Nampijinpa Price was first, and I will come to you, Senator David Pocock. Before you speak, Senator Nampijinpa Price, I will check whether any of the Greens senators are intending to speak. If not, I will go to Senator Nampijinpa Price, then I'll go to Senator David Pocock and then I will come to you, Senator Cox. I don't have a speaking list in front of me. I'm just trying to keep everyone equally unhappy. An honourable senator interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Yes, but no-one stood on the government side of the chamber. Two stood on the opposition side of the chamber. An honourable senator interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 I've called Senator Nampijinpa Price and then I will go to— An honourable senator: Senator Pocock. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 If you could sort it out amongst yourselves, that would make my life a lot easier. Senator Nampijinpa Price has been given the call, and then I will go to whomever. 17:48 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory I rise today to address the blatant hypocrisy of those who are calling for this referral to committee. It is the hypocrisy of those from outside the Northern Territory who are trying to stall and ultimately to stop a project that will help improve the lives of not only Northern Territorians but all Australians and untold numbers of people right around the world. The people of the Northern Territory are sick of politicians and activists from wealthier parts of this country using the Territory to virtue signal to their inner-city bases. I quote the Northern Territory's Labor Chief Minister, Natasha Fyles: … it's bad enough to be lectured by people living on Sydney's northern beaches or Melbourne's eastern suburbs about what jobs Territorians can and can't have. But bagging out a development that supports zero and lower emissions energy from a place overwhelmingly powered by coal and oil? The hypocrisy is breathtaking. I have to admit, I find myself in unfamiliar territory today because I find myself agreeing with the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. Territorians have had enough of people from cities and economies built on coal and oil lecturing us how we use our resources. Middle Arm will achieve two things: firstly, it will provide a much needed boost to jobs and to the Northern Territory's economy; but, secondly—highlighting the hypocrisy—Middle Arm will provide cheap and reliable energy through gas that is cleaner and has lower emissions than coal or oil. That's right, not only will Middle Arm help to boost the economy of the Northern Territory but the project will help Australia and the world reduce its carbon emissions. To stand in its way under the guise of environmental protection is hypocritical, short-sighted and plain wrong. I also note the very high environmental standards to which our resources sector operates. If we were to shirk our international responsibilities and stop providing this high-quality, low-emissions fuel, countries around the world who don't have alternatives will turn to lower quality, higher emitting resources that will increase pollution and environmental damage. Middle Arm can improve the lives of Northern Territorians, all Australians, help reduce emissions around the world and address the problems that the virtue signallers of this place claim to care so much about. It is a win/win really. It is such a win that it's one of the few clear-cut projects that can receive support from both sides of the political aisle. Coalition governments and Labor governments at both federal and Territory levels have worked together on this project for many years to ensure that it can go ahead with environmental considerations at the forefront of the process. I absolutely oppose this referral to committee and encourage all involved to get a move on, do whatever they can to speed this project up so that the people of the Northern Territory, some of our most marginalised Australians, can receive the benefits they need and absolutely deserve. 17:53 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Hanson-Young for this motion to look into a project that absolutely deserves the scrutiny of the Senate. I would like to return to what we should be debating here today, whether or not to refer this to a committee. I find myself sitting here listening to what can only be described as ALP talking points and gas industry talking points coming from the major parties. We heard from Senator McDonald about hysterical activism, when we're talking about 2,300 medical professionals putting their names, their reputations in an open letter to the Prime Minister, expressing concern about the health impacts from Middle Arm on people in Darwin, on young people in Darwin, on future generations born in Darwin. Today in the building there were peak bodies representing 100,000 doctors across the country, expressing these concerns about the direct impacts that Middle Arm will have on the health of not only people in the Darwin area and people who live in the Beetaloo basin but on all Australians, as well as the contribution that Beetaloo, Barossa and other projects will have on the climate. Senator Nampijinpa Price talked about unfamiliar territory in agreeing with NT Labor. This is very familiar territory for those on the crossbench—to have the major parties on a unity ticket when it comes to fossil fuel expansion in Australia. We've heard so many good things from the new government about the need to act, to take this seriously, to build an economy for the future. Millions of Australians have been so hopeful that that would happen, and yet, at the same time we hear about the transition, we also hear about the expansion of the fossil fuel industry. We're seeing $1.5 billion of taxpayer money going into the Middle Arm petrochemical hub and gas export facility. These sorts of decisions deserve the scrutiny of the Senate, given the concerns that have been raised by paediatricians, by experts here in Australia and around the world, who have spent decades looking at what it means for communities to live next to petrochemical hubs. We've heard the argument from the government about how it's not just gas; it's all these other things. But, by having gas being processed there, you're exposing people in Darwin to the effects of that, and that is on your hands. We know this. We have the evidence. Yet you continue with this decision. This is a very hard thing for the government, I'm sure. There are many smart, educated people who can read the briefing from all these doctors who've been here today, over 100 doctors from the NT, wanting to come here and meet with the Prime Minister to raise their concerns. They weren't able to meet with the NT Chief Minister. She wouldn't meet with them. So they've come to Canberra to seek out support from federal politicians on this project that is getting federal money. They couldn't get a meeting with the PM today. There are a bunch of parents from Darwin who are concerned what this means for their children. We know that there will be an increase in leukaemia in young people, in cardiovascular disease and in asthma. Despite all this evidence, the major parties are saying that we shouldn't even look into this further—that this doesn't even warrant our scrutiny. It's so absurd. It is absurd that you would not want this to have a little bit more oversight, to dig a little bit deeper, to be able to take these concerns onboard. When we talk about these things, we see the government senators looking down, not wanting to look up, because you know what you are doing. I plead with you. I've spent the last couple of months talking to climate scientists and reading about the known and likely impacts for young people born today. My four-year-old niece, Georgia—what will her life look like for the next 70 years, to the year 2100? It is terrifying. It is no surprise that young people will continue to move away from the major parties if you continue down this road of destroying their future. We know what we're doing now. We have more than enough evidence. Scientists are imploring you; they are urging you. Communities are urging you, and yet we can't even look into this. We can't even have a Senate inquiry, despite the government agreeing to that a while ago. Now we've seen a change of heart. These sorts of decisions matter. They deserve more scrutiny. The thing that we will be judged on by young people, by future generations, is what we do now with the evidence that we have, the knowledge that we have, to turn things around. At the moment, we're failing them. We are failing young people and future generations. We are making decisions that are good for the short term—maybe. We're making decisions that are good for gas executives and gas corporations. I urge the government to reconsider this and to vote for a motion to set up a Senate inquiry into a project that is very controversial in the Northern Territory and across the country because, while this will have immediate impacts on Darwin, it affects all of us. We share a climate, and this project unlocks the Beetaloo and Barossa—some of the dirtiest gas in the country. It's gas so dirty that, from what I've been told, they won't be able to pipe it with the CO2 in it. They'll have to vent the CO2 out at sea. Maybe in the future, with carbon capture and storage, we can take the CO2 out and pump it back underground, but these are the sorts of projects that the government is enabling with this $1.5 billion. Again, I go back to the core of this, which is whether or not the Senate deserves to be able to look at Middle Arm. I urge the government to reconsider. This will not age well. We are already seeing projections that the Northern Territory will become uninhabitable if we don't stop new fossil fuel projects. It won't be hard to live in; it will be uninhabitable. Your decisions around Middle Arm—your decisions to approve new coalmines and to kowtow to the gas industry—will make that a reality. On behalf of the thousands of people who have been in touch with my office and said, yes, politicians have a duty of care to young people and future generations, I implore the government to allow the Senate to look into Middle Arm. 18:01 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I rise to speak in support of my colleague's motion that is currently before the Senate. I want to be clear from the get-go that Middle Arm is in fact the dirtiest petrochemical hub and will put First Nations petroglyphs at risk in Middle Arm. This issue has already been raised with the minister. It'll also put health at risk, and Senator Pocock and Senator Hanson-Young have already articulated that with the doctors that were in the building today. There was an open letter to the Prime Minister around the health of people who are going to be living in that immediate area. We'll have our own cancer alley, and we have heard the concerns of people who live within a five-kilometre radius of Middle Arm. They will have a 30 per cent higher risk of leukaemia. I can tell you now that First Nations people in Larrakia country don't need that extra 30 per cent if we are to close the gap. We already have our own statistics that are unacceptable in this country. Everyone on all sides of this chamber and in the other place stands and talks about how we're going to close the gap, and yet they will continue to put the environment and the climate at risk. Tamboran have been very clear that Middle Arm is key for the export of gas from the Beetaloo Basin. They have pushed ahead against the wishes of traditional owners, against the wishes of farmers and against the wishes of the climate science that is very clear. Also, the Northern Territory government have already said that they have a commitment not to proceed with any fracking until all the recommendations of the Pepper inquiry are fully implemented, which is a blatant lie now, because they're pushing ahead. They're continuing to ignore, and it's all about money. It's all about these so-called jobs that people are going to have. I ask those opposite: how many mob are going to work on those jobs? Not many. Do you know why? It's because they figured out the climate science. They know that they cannot work on projects that go against the cultural and spiritual connection to country. Yet we are here talking about the $1.5 billion that the Middle Arm project has and Tamboran have said is for the export of gas from that terminal. That is contrary to what Senator McDonald would have you believe, because we know—and Senator Pocock has also spoken about this—that the PRRT system in this country is broken. The tax system is broken. The tax credits that exist mean that a nurse in this county pays more tax than the gas cartels, and the gas cartels, in the words of Minister Husic from the other place, are who they are. They don't want any of those caps on their gas because they are benefitting from the Ukraine war, from the misery in what is happening there. And we are being targeted because we are not paying attention to the environmental and social governance that should exist in this country. It should exist, but it does not. Everybody in this place from the two major parties is looking the other way right now. With their heads down, they're not looking at anybody because the gas corporations have told them they can make billions of dollars from sending our climate destroying gas overseas, by offloading it. On top of that, the documents that have been made public in this place show that Labor knew this funding would be used to expand the gas industry. But do you know what? Again, they look the other way because they're funding it anyway. They took up where these guys left off, just to make sure there was a seamless transition. They are knowingly making the climate crisis worse. They were elected saying: 'We'll go in there and we will solve this. The climate wars will be over.' But they are also knowingly destroying or going to destroy the remaining First Nations rock art in the city of Darwin, in Larrakia country, while in this place we're talking about cultural heritage being impacted by industry. There are senior Larrakia people that have told me that this artwork that exists right there is priceless for their mob, and it should be considered priceless and a part of Australia's history. Both the Northern Territory and the federal governments have failed to even follow any cultural protocols at a state level or at a federal level in relation to consulting with the Larrakia people. Earlier today I commended to the Senate a bill to protect the spirit of sea country, sea country that will be affected by the Barossa gas field. It will be affected, and it will pipe gas 200 kilometres down the road to Darwin, into Middle Arm. This is what is going to happen, and this is all happening on the back of the destruction of Juukan Gorge. I was a member of the northern Australian committee, which did two reports. The first one was titled Never again. When you say, 'Never again,' it means you shouldn't do it. Never again are we going do that, and yet here we are. We are at a place where we continue to see examples of industrial development, including in my home state of Western Australia with the ancient rock art in the Burrup Peninsula. This peninsula is being placed at risk by industry, by the promise of all this wonderful money that is going to come from all of this. There's no point in having money if no-one's going to be there to enjoy it. They won't be there because you're going to kill everyone off. We need to hear from traditional owners about how this project could impact their cultural heritage, their country, their environment and their biodiversity, and if the government won't allow that to happen, we will continue to pursue it in this place. As Senator Hanson-Young said, this is the place of scrutiny where we should be asking those important questions. The Greens have been pushing for an inquiry into Middle Arm for quite some time now. Labor have already backfllipped once on this, so we're giving them a chance to do the right thing and to let traditional owners know they can be heard when they speak about the true nature of this project. They are already telling us they have concerns. They're already saying to us, 'We want to have a conversation about what else we should know.' We know why this government doesn't want that. It's because they don't want their greenwashing to be exposed. They absolutely don't want that because, whilst they're saying that the climate wars are over and we're all playing nice, they're over there handing out billions of taxpayer dollars to fossil fuel companies and continuing to approve new coal and gas projects in this country. And they are pushing for this dirty, climate-destroying industrial petrochemical hub in Darwin Harbour to go on. This government knows that if we do talk to people like traditional owners—in the year of the Voice, when we're standing here talking about how important their voices are and that their voices must be heard—we will hear from them that their voices have not been heard, that nobody has consulted with them and how this project is not sustainable. It is those traditional owners from Larrakia country who've been sustaining this—for over 65,000 years of continuing culture they've been protecting their land and their sea country. We'll also hear that the project is not clean. There's not free, prior and informed consent from those living close by. The government do not want their own mistruths to come to light and for their greenwashing to be laid out on the table again for everyone to see. That's why they are blocking this and choosing to get back into bed with the opposition. But the Greens are committed to showing what this project is really about and the impact that this project will have, as Senator David Pocock has already said, not just now but for generations of our children and grandchildren, and not just in Darwin on Larrakia country, not just in the Beetaloo basin and the Barossa, and not just in my home state, with the Scarborough project on the Burrup Peninsula, but all over the world. You are setting a precedent by blocking the questions that this inquiry could ask and the impact that we will expose if the inquiry is allowed to proceed. The Australian public have the right to know about the impact of what's happening in their backyard. If you listen to those opposite you'll hear them say: 'Oh, yes, people want jobs. They want to reap the benefit.' Come on, people! They also want to know about the health impact and how this affects their children. As a mother of two daughters, I would like to know what was going on in my backyard if this petrochemical hub was being opened. I'm not a doctor and, when 2,300 of them march into Canberra and to Parliament House and give their medical advice, we need to sit up and listen because we are not those people. They know the impact because they've studied it. They are listening to the climate science. This hysteria activism that is being talked about is ridiculous. We should be hysterical. The climate and the earth are cooking. They are boiling. People need to take this seriously. Preventing an inquiry into Middle Arm will allow us all to look the other way. But I can tell you now that, on this side of the chamber, the Australian Greens—alongside some on the crossbench—are not looking away. We will continue to make the government accountable. We will continue to remind the opposition of the things that they said while they were in power and the decisions that they made, because we've got the legacy of it now. The legacy piece is here and this government continues it. So I fully support this inquiry. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question before the Senate is that the motion standing in the name of Senator Hanson-Young regarding a reference to the Environment and Communications References Committee concerning the Middle Arm industrial precinct be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [18:19]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

11 AYES Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 28 NOES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brockman, W. E. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Green, N. L. Henderson, S. M. McAllister, J. R. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

Reference 64 18:21 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I, and also on behalf of Senators Dean Smith, Reynolds, Brockman and O'Sullivan, move: That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 12 October 2023: The conduct of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) in relation to the protest at the home of the Chief Executive Officer of Woodside Energy, with reference to: (a) the ABC's actions in attending the protest; (b) engagement between the ABC and the protestors prior to the incident; (c) any collusion between the ABC and the protestors; (d) the explanations provided by the ABC for its attendance at the incident, and the extent to which those explanations are accurate; and (e) any other related matters. By any measure, I think all Australians could not believe what went on last week at the home of Woodside CEO Meg O'Neill in Perth. It was an absolute disgrace. Nearly all Australians condemned the actions of the activists who terrorised Ms O'Neill and her family in their home, their private property. That the Western Australian police were on hand and arrested the activists is a good thing, and we'll now await the outcome of those arrests as the individuals are processed through the Western Australian courts system. The other disturbing aspect of what occurred, and the reason the Liberal Western Australian senators and Senator Henderson have moved this motion, was the attendance at the scene of the incident by a team from the ABC Four Corners program. There are a number of concerns about this particular set of circumstances. The first one is this: this was at 6.30 am in a suburban street in Perth. I would've thought—and these are seasoned journalists—alarm bells should have started ringing at this point in time. The Four Corners crew, by the ABC's own admission, only knew about the likely protest because they had been advised by the protesters themselves. This is where it starts to get interesting. The ABC—and, let's remember, the ABC are funded by the Australian taxpayer—claimed they had no knowledge that what was at the address was actually going to occur there or that it was actually someone's house. This within itself raises very serious questions. Quite frankly, it beggars belief that a crew from one of this country's most renowned investigative journalism shows turns up at a residential address in Perth and doesn't ask any further questions. A quick Google search of the address would have indicated that it was a residential address. Like my fellow Western Australian Liberal senators, we all know this part of Perth very well, and, I have to say to you, if I was travelling through the suburbs at that hour of the morning, I'd start to wonder, 'Well, this is all looking pretty familiar—house after house, after residential address after residential address.' Senator McGrath 217241 Not the ABC! Senator CASH I0M As Senator McGrath says—and I will take that interjection—not the ABC! Clearly, that is what has occurred here. Only the ABC would be travelling through the suburbs at 6.30 in the morning and not think that perhaps something was up, that perhaps they themselves had a duty to inform the police of what was about to occur. Quite frankly, alarm bells should have been ringing that environmental activists were turning up at a residential property in Perth at 6.30 in the morning. I would have thought it might have been at this point in time that the crew could have thought of alerting the authorities. That would have been the sensible course of action, but, of course, again, we are talking about the ABC. The ABC claimed that the team remained on public land. This is what they've actually said. This is their explanation. The publicly funded, taxpayer funded, ABC claimed that the team remained on public land and at no time went on to private property or had any involvement in what was happening. That's their explanation. The problem with the explanation is this: like so many buildings now, the houses have CCTV. What then happened is Sky News Australia—I believe it was Andrew Clennell—revealed a picture of CCTV taken from the scene. Oh no! We have an explanation from the ABC, but now we actually have Sky News Australia with an actual picture, CCTV taken from the scene. What does the picture from the CCTV of the scene show? It clearly shows at least two of the four ABC Four Corners team—and this is where their explanation, unfortunately, starts to fall apart—standing in the driveway of this private residence. What that does—and it should say to all Australians—is bring into doubt the ABC explanation of last week. Of course, it's the ABC, so they're probably going to come up with some technical arguments about where somebody's property begins and ends. I don't know about you, but the last time I stood in my driveway—I would say that most reasonable Australians, when they're standing in their driveway, would consider the activities in the driveway as depicted in the photo to be overstepping the mark. We all work in politics, and we know that there are certain lines in politics you don't cross. You don't bring peoples' families into an argument. It's an unwritten rule, but it is one that I would hope that we all adhere to. Well, I would have thought that the publicly funded broadcaster would also know that there are some lines you don't cross, but, again, it is the ABC, and they clearly weren't thinking about lines that could or could not be crossed. This is where it gets interesting. After the picture became public, we were told that the ABC is now conducting a detailed examination of the circumstances surrounding this matter. I would as well! Because the picture that was made public doesn't quite accord with the explanation that has been given by the ABC. But what we on this side of the chamber, the coalition led by Peter Dutton, are saying is that, quite frankly, that is not good enough; the ABC investigating itself, quite frankly, is not good enough. It is funded by the Australian taxpayer; it is taxpayers' money, and the taxpayer has a right to know what went on. That is why we have moved this motion. We want to see this matter referred to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee for an inquiry and report by 12 October 2023. What we'd like the inquiry to look at is this: the ABC's actions in attending the protest; engagement between the ABC and protesters prior to the incident; any collusion between the ABC and the protesters; the explanations provided by the ABC for its attendance at the incident and the extent to which those explanations are accurate—this one is very important, given what the CCTV footage shows; and any other related matters. What will the ABC say? They'll say this is an attack on media freedom. Guess what? No, it is not. We on this side of the chamber strongly believe in freedom of speech and a free media. But—and this is what sometimes the ABC need to understand—it comes with a responsibility on the media's part to conduct themselves in a way that is acceptable to the majority of Australians. And that responsibility is particularly important when the media organisation in question is funded by the Australian taxpayer. This is also not an attempt to cow the ABC or shut down legitimate reporting on any matters. It is simply a question about conduct on that day. As I have said, the taxpayers who fund the ABC deserve—in fact, they don't just deserve, they should be demanding from the ABC and, indeed, from this Senate—answers to those questions. We should have confidence that our money is being used well and that certain standards are being adhered to by those receiving taxpayer funding. We've heard from the government that they've asked for more information about this matter, but I say to the government: 'Well, quite frankly, that is not good enough.' It is time for Minister Rowland to publicly release all information that her office holds on the conduct of the ABC at the protest. This includes all communications on the matter between the minister and the ABC. The minister should also explain whether or not she, the Prime Minister and the Albanese government support the ABC's conduct. We also call on the minister to say whether any ABC employee will face any consequences as a result of their conduct. It's also time the minister revealed any further action that she is going to take on this matter. Australians have a right to know what the minister responsible for the ABC is doing. But, not only that, they also have a right to know what she thinks should be done. Those opposite may also be interested in what the Labor Premier of Western Australia had to say about this matter. It's not often I'm going to agree with Premier Cook, but in this instance at least he had something to say. He penned a widely reported letter to ABC chair Ita Buttrose. In part, this is what Premier Cook's letter said: I have been in public life long enough to understand the vital role the news media plays in a healthy democracy and the right of journalists to report the news without fear or favour. However, the fact that an ABC TV crew attended the private home of a WA citizen to document the committing of alleged criminal acts is cause for great concern and morally wrong. Your Managing Director has sought to reassure me about the prior knowledge of the ABC crew— Now, listen to this. This is the WA Premier: but it is difficult to comprehend how a TV crew could not understand how their presence at a private residence only encouraged these activists. It is doubtful 'Disrupt Burrup Hub' would have targeted a private residence if your TV crew was not present to publicise such appalling actions. Wittingly or unwittingly, the ABC was complicit. And what have we heard, colleagues, from Prime Minister Albanese to date? Senator McGrath 217241 Crickets. Senator CASH I0M There you go. Thank you for filling the silence. Let's also have a look at the Australian newspaper, which captured well what many Australians think about this matter in its editorial last week. The editorial said this in part: The creative folk at the ABC have this week debuted a new fictional drama with an unlikely plot line and a most surprising twist. In the gripping script, a crew from the national broadcaster's celebrated Four Corners current affairs program receives a hot news tip in the wee hours of Tuesday morning. The message? Grab your camera gear and head to an address in the Perth suburbs. These intrepid truth warriors have absolutely no idea what's happening there. Hell, they don't even know it's someone's house. Without answers to these most basic of questions they judge the story significant enough to race to the scene, where they happen upon a group of miscreant activists allegedly planning to carry out an attack on the home of Woodside boss Meg O'Neill. The big twist? The ABC expects Australians to believe this ludicrous version of how events unfolded on Tuesday. It would appear even the national broadcaster, as well practised as it is at flipping two-finger salutes to the notion of accountability, has realised having prior knowledge of a crime targeting the home of a senior business figure is a bridge too far. This is also what the Australian said in their editorial: Trust is the bedrock of any news organisation, let alone one funded by taxpayers. If senior ABC staff are contemptuous enough to spin baloney to explain away a damaging incident, what else are… their journalists not upfront with Australians about? This is what we on this side of the chamber say: we need an open and transparent inquiry in which all of the issues can be examined in public. The ABC investigating the ABC is, quite frankly, laughable. The ABC investigating itself is not good enough. I would actually implore those in the government to back the establishment of this inquiry. Finally start living up to some of the promises of openness and transparency that you made to the Australian people before the last election. 18:36 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I rise to speak on the motion that has been moved by coalition senators today. Firstly, I want to comment again—as I have already done on a number of occasions—on the protest action that this motion refers to, which took place in Perth last week. As I said in answers to questions from Senator Henderson in question time yesterday and as I said in a media appearance on Sunday morning, this protest, in my opinion and that of every member of the government, completely crossed the line of what is appropriate, and it should be rightly condemned. As Minister Rowland, Minister and Madeline King, other representatives of the government and I have said, everyone has a right to feel safe in their own home. It doesn't matter whether they're the CEO of the major listed company, it doesn't matter whether they're a member of parliament, it doesn't matter whether they're any member of the Australian public: people have a right to feel safe in their own homes. Australians should feel free to express their views, and protesting and rallies are an important part of our democracy. But it is not acceptable for these protests to be conducted at the door of someone's private home. When you take on jobs that are in the public eye, there is an understanding that sometimes you will face protests and public opposition. It's something that happens to all of us every day of the week. But what you do not expect is for these extreme acts to come to your front door, where you and your family have every right to feel safe. Crossing that line from peacefully protesting to trespassing on people's property and intimidating them makes them feel frightened to live at home. I don't think that anyone believes that is an acceptable way to voice what you think about a certain matter, nor does it do your cause any good. Let's also be clear about what these protesters want. These people want to end fossil fuels today, without any contemplation of the consequences for Australians and for our regional neighbours. The truth is that this kind of unthoughtful approach would only result in economic harm for Australians, and it would deprive our friends and allies in the region of the energy supplies they need. As is well understood, the Albanese government is committed to reaching net zero. We've set ambitious targets to improve our emissions reduction by 2030, and we're transitioning to renewable energy. But protests such as these do not help that cause. They only serve to undermine it. I understand the perpetrators in question have been charged, and I acknowledge the efforts of WA police. We should let that police investigation and those charges run their course. I also understand that the Minister for Resources, Madeline King, has made contact with the CEO of Woodside, Meg O'Neill, to check in on her welfare. That kind of event is frightening and would shake anyone. Clearly, given that the police are involved, their actions will be subject to investigation and legal proceedings. As I've said, everyone in Australia and across the world has the right to protest, but they do not have a right to trespass on people's land and their homes and make them scared to be in their own homes. That is not legitimate protest activity. In terms of the ABC, I understand that the Woodside chairman wrote to Minister Rowland last week to outline the company's concerns and the steps that they were taking to formally raise these concerns with the ABC. I also understand that in doing so the chairman also thanked Minister Rowland for her public commentary and handling of the issue. The ABC have since confirmed that they have received that official complaint and they are conducting a detailed investigation into the circumstances surrounding this matter. It is the right thing for the ABC to examine this matter, and the government will not be supporting this motion today, because we believe it is appropriate to let that investigation run its course. That is the process the Woodside chairman has himself chosen to pursue. The company of the CEO who was involved in this incident has elected to seek an investigation by the ABC, and that wish should be respected and that process should be respected. The opposition is also aware that it has options such as examining these issues in Senate estimates, and, of course, if they are dissatisfied with the ABC's investigation, of making a complaint to the ABC Ombudsman—a position that was established by the former coalition government. So there are options here to pursue this matter legitimately. As I said, the Woodside chair has referred this matter to the ABC for investigation. In that context, the government does not believe it would be constructive to commence a Senate inquiry while this investigation is underway—an investigation, as I said, that has been requested by the Woodside chairman. Australians, understandably, have high standards for the public broadcaster. Under its charter, the ABC is required to provide high-quality, innovative and comprehensive services to inform, entertain, educate and reflect the cultural diversity of the Australian community. While The ABC is independent of government in its operational and editorial matters, that does not mean that it is above scrutiny. There are robust complaints handling processes in place to deal with issue that are raised with the ABC, and they need to be used to thoroughly investigate this incident. That is what is now occurring, at the request of the Woodside chairman. The government will await the processes that are underway at the ABC. I suggest that the coalition should consider utilising other avenues to raise questions about this matter, such as through Senate estimates or waiting for the investigation by the ABC to be completed. As I said, if the opposition remains dissatisfied with the process there is the option of referring the complaint to the ABC Ombudsman as well. That is the appropriate way of handling this matter, that is the way the Woodside chairman has requested this matter be dealt with, and we think that that is the appropriate way for it to be dealt with, with rather than setting up a Senate inquiry in the middle of that investigation. 18:42 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia The sheer hypocrisy of the coalition in drafting and putting forward this motion is just extraordinary. There are the breaches of privacy that they have encouraged and that they have said nothing about, particularly over the last couple of months in relation to the alleged sexual assault of Ms Higgins. That is just one stark example. But, of course, if you want to know who in this chamber has a track record of colluding with the media, it is members on this side. Wasn't it Senator Cash, when she was an employment minister, whose office tipped off the media when the unions were raided? Talk about being in collusion with the media when it suits you. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Scarr? Senator Scarr 282997 That is a personal reflection, Deputy President. Senator Cash, my colleague, is not here to defend herself, but I'm happy to do so. That matter was determined by a Federal Court judge, and Senator Cash was held not to have been at any fault whatsoever. Senator Hanson-Young should know that, and I ask her to withdraw that reflection of collusion. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Hanson-Young, withdraw to the extent that the matter conflicts with the Federal Court. Senator I0U I will withdraw, Mr Deputy President, for the sake of being able to continue this debate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 No, to the extent in relation to the coalition. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U Comments withdrawn. The DEPUTY 10000 Thank you. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U Mr Deputy President, they're a bit tetchy, aren't they? They're a bit sensitive over there. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Scarr! Senator Hanson-Young, please restrain your references to the members on my left. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Scarr. Senator Hanson-Young, please restrain your references to the senators on my left. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U The sheer hypocrisy of this motion: it is just a continuation of the culture war of the coalition, led of course by Mr Dutton, the chief disinformation commissioner, the chief who is in charge of continuing to push and peddle mis and disinformation as his only way of being able to try and win any public debate in this country. It doesn't matter whether it is the Voice, it doesn't matter whether it is about the state of the climate and environment, it doesn't matter if it is about the real issues facing everyday people, it doesn't matter whether it is about those who are in peril because of the previous government's refugee policies, Mr Dutton has a track record of dis and misinformation and of colluding with the media when it suits him—over and over and over again. He is the chief operator and his own team just follow like sheep and that is what we are seeing today. The culture war from the coalition towards the public broadcaster is just so crystal clear. It doesn't matter what the topic is, they will find an excuse to justify their policies of cutting the ABC budget, disrupting the ABC and meddling with its independence. The ABC has already said that it is investigating this issue, will have a review and will report back. This chamber should respect that independent process. But, of course, those on that side have no concern. They don't care about the independence of the public broadcaster; they just want to attack—stab, stab, stab. That is all they care about: cut its budget, stab at its independence. That is all the coalition are good for. I have moved an amendment to this motion, pointing out that the biggest, most hysterical peddlers of dis and misinformation working with the right-wing activists in this country are News Corp and the Murdoch press. If we want to have an inquiry into the way the press report on climate and environment issues in this country, we should be inquiring into the climate denialism in the reporting of the Murdoch press, over and over and over again. You don't have to take my word for it; James Murdoch himself has called out the climate denialism of his family's own corporation. It is plain to see that this is just another political attack on the ABC, our public broadcaster, by the coalition. They have got absolutely nothing else to do. They attack the right of First Nations and Indigenous people to a voice and to giving constitutional recognition. They fear monger about that. They collude with the right-wing press and now here they are doing the bidding of the right-wing press again, who are simply in a culture war with our public broadcaster. You would often hear from those on that side that they would be the first to argue about freedom of speech, freedom of the press—when it suits them. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U I can hear the screeching from the other side. Let me be clear, there is an investigation into this issue being run by the ABC and we should respect the independence of that. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Hughes, on a point of order? Senator Hughes 273828 I feel that was a sexist term directed to me—I may have been interjecting—that she could hear 'screeching'. I would ask Senator Hanson-Young to withdraw her sexism from this chamber. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Hughes. Senator Hanson-Young was speaking generally in the chamber. That's my understanding. No-one was interjecting from this side that I could hear. I thought you were orderly at the time. Senator Hanson-Young. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U Thank you, Mr Deputy President. The glass jaws are extraordinary. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Don't rub salt into the wound. Please continue. I want to get through the evening, Senator Hanson-Young. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U The ABC have already announced that they will investigate the allegations made, consider the appropriateness of the work of their journalists and that will be made public for all to see. We need to respect the independence of that process. But let me be clear, because there were some accusations made while I've been on my feet: I don't think that protests should happen in people's homes. I think the right to peaceful protest is the right to peaceful protest in public spaces. That is my position. I think it should be done in public places. I don't think peoples' private properties or homes should be targeted. I want to be really clear about that. But this culture war, exploiting this to use as an attack on our public broadcaster, is nothing more than gutter politics from the coalition. The ABC have said they will investigate, they will review and they will report back, and we should respect the independence. But it is a lack of respect for the public broadcaster, for the climate science, for the rights of journalists to do their jobs that is being presented by the coalition here today. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U The ABC— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Order on my left. Opposition senators interjecting— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 It's not a conversation, it's a debate. Senator Hanson-Young. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U They just can't help themselves. Hysteria. Trumping it up. Fake news, fake outrage and fake facts. That's all you get from the coalition. It doesn't matter whether it's climate science, the Voice or the ABC—fake, fake, fake and fear mongering. That's all they've got. That's why we're voting the motion down. I move: Omit all words after "The conduct of the", substitute "Murdoch-owned News Corp in relation to their history of climate denialism, with reference to: (a) News Corp's history of biased coverage in relation to the climate crisis; (b) any collusion between News Corp and the fossil fuel industry; and (c) any campaigning or lobbying by News Corp or any of its mast heads for stronger anti-protest laws". 18:53 Senat 283585 Western Australia or O'SULLIVAN (—) (): It must be broadcast day in the Senate today because what we've seen here is a demonstration of the stunts and gimmicks that the Greens bring into this place. This amendment is the most ridiculous amendment to a reference to establish an inquiry into a very serious issue that's occurred in my home state of Western Australia. I'm very proud to join my fellow Western Australian Liberal senators in calling for this reference, for this inquiry, because it's absolutely critical. I would invite others—I see Senator Payman here, a good colleague from Western Australia—to join in on this because this is an outrageous breach of privacy that we've seen here, and it is unconscionable that it has occurred. The staged protests that occurred at the personal home of Woodside Energy CEO Ms Meg O'Neill and her family is absolutely disgraceful. It needs to be called out without any qualification. Unfortunately, not supporting this reference means there is a qualification that's occurring here. We can't see this happen. This should be a unanimous decision here today. It's a very, very simple inquiry. Senator Watt said there are other avenues that should be looked at that the coalition could use. Frankly, it is the role of the Senate to look into these issues, and we should be able to hold an inquiry into the matters that surround this breach of privacy and that caused fear in the home of a private citizen in Western Australia. It is absolutely disgusting that protesters would turn up to a private residence—with the knowledge of an ABC camera crew. It's just absolutely unconscionable. The public broadcaster's record is strong when it comes to activist journalists, and this is just another example of it. It is, and they need to be called out for it. As Senator Cash was saying in her contribution, for the ABC to appear on the driveway alongside radical climate activists is no coincidence. As Senator Cash was saying, when you get a tip-off—it was Four Corners; they were obviously there for a special investigation, running some sort of story—if you're getting an address in the suburbs, where there are households, you would know that this quite possibly could be a private residence. Anyone of any conscience—the producer of the show, the camera crew, the reporter, the journalists, whoever was involved—would know. It wasn't 1 St Georges Terrace. This was out in the suburbs, clearly a private residence. It is unbelievable. I will defend the right of people to be able to protest and protest peacefully, but we're seeing, more and more across this country, a rise of property destruction, vandalism and trespassing. This is not protesting. This is breaking the law. For the ABC to go along with this—frankly, they're culpable. They're just as much a part of it, and they need to be called out for it. All major oil and gas companies are subject to regular protests. We get that. We understand that there are people who don't like the work that they do. Frankly, if it wasn't for fossil fuels, we wouldn't have alleviated poverty across the world like we have over the last century, but there's no acknowledgement of that from the Left. Protests occur, and there's no acknowledgement of that; there's just this utopian world that they want to live in. Look, we're going to differ in that regard. But this is unacceptable. When we're worried about climate activists throwing paint on buildings—it's an absolute farce, and it's unacceptable. These activist stunts are unacceptable, and they should be punished. For the ABC Four Corners camera crew to rock up alongside this is simply unacceptable and is an extreme overreach. There are some serious questions that need to be asked, and a Senate inquiry is an appropriate place for those questions to be put to the ABC. This is the public broadcaster. They have a responsibility. They've been provided funding by the Australian taxpayer to do their job, and Australian taxpayers deserve for questions to be answered. The ABC's initial statement said: The ABC team remained on public land observing what was happening and getting some vision, as journalists do. We already know that this is untrue. We already know that this is untrue because we've seen the photo of this crew on the driveway of a private residence. This is unbelievable. They may say, 'Oh, it was on the kerbside; it was on council land.' We've all got driveways or entrances to the buildings that we live in. If someone arrives, whether it happens to be on the council verge or whether it's inside the property line of your residence, citizens know—any reasonable person will know— Senator Scarr 282997 You don't need to be a surveyor to— Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 You don't need to be a surveyor. That's right. I'll take that interjection, Senator Scarr. We know that this is wrong. So, for the government to say that they don't support this reference—we expected it from the Greens—it is a real shame. We cannot trust the ABC's internal investigation. From what's been spoken about here by Senator Watt and my colleagues in the Greens such as Senator Hanson-Young the ABC are looking into this, but that's just them looking into their own state of affairs. What we need is an independent review of this. We need a Senate inquiry to have a look at this. But what we've heard from the federal Labor government—from both Minister Michelle Rowland and Minister Watt—is a weak response. It's simply a slap on wrist for the ABC. It's not acceptable. There needs to be a thorough investigation. This needs to be looked at. With the power of this Senate, there needs to be an investigation into this so that we can get to the bottom of what actually happened and so that there can be consequences. It's time that this government got serious about this issue. They need to step up to the plate. I commend this motion to the Senate and urge all senators, particular the Western Australian senators—I see that Senator Cox is in here, and Senator Payman is also from Western Australia—to support this motion. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I remind senators that this is an unlimited debate, so you will have an opportunity, if time gets away from us, to speak on it tomorrow. 19:01 Senator PA 300707 Western Australia YMAN () (): I want to thank Senator Cash for raising this motion. The safety and wellbeing of Western Australians is our shared priority, and I'm quite proud of that. As a senator representing my beautiful home state, I take this issue very seriously. Everyone has the right to protest. It is an important part of our democracy. However, individuals should not be targeted. Seeking to intimidate someone in their home or workplace is absolutely unacceptable. It is never okay to trespass upon someone's home, to threaten or to intimidate, and these extreme protesters should be condemned. We need to protect our democracy and society, and we do not want to become a place where public figures need to be surrounded by security figures at all times. I think all Western Australians understand this balance, and I understand that the perpetrators have been charged. I want to thank the WA police for their efforts. With regard to the ABC, I note that staff behaviour is a matter for the broadcaster's board and executives and is guided by a code of conduct which outlines expectations about staff conduct. The ABC maintains a robust complaints handling process, and the broadcaster has confirmed it is conducting a very detailed examination of the matter and it is appropriate that this process run its course. Australians rightly have high expectations of the public broadcaster, and it is not above scrutiny. I want to reiterate that people are free to express their views, but coming to someone's home in the way that these protesters did crossed the line. It is important that protests are carried out with common decency and within the confines of the law. No-one has the right to trespass on a person's land and make them scared to be in their own home. This is not legitimate protest activity, and the perpetrators should be held to account for their actions. 19:03 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria We just heard from the senator opposite that this is not legitimate protest action. I would argue against that. I would say it absolutely is legitimate protest action—from the Left, anyway. The Left love to harass, love to harangue and love to show up at your home or your business and cancel you. The Left is the enemy of all good and decent people in this nation—in the world, actually. Obviously, I rise here today to support Senator Cash's reference to the Environment and Communications References Committee. Why wouldn't I? Of course you would. Of course I would support my Liberal Party colleagues. I'll go one further. How about this? How about we defund the ABC? How about that one? Defund the ABC. I'm sick of the ABC. All the ABC do is left-wing, brainwashing, propaganda garbage. That's what the ABC is; it's garbage. Break it up into little pieces and sell it to the lowest bidder—not even the highest bidder, the lowest bidder. That's all they're good for. There are certainties in life. What are those certainties, my Senate colleagues? I'll tell you what they are: life, death and taxes. That's what they are: life, death and taxes. And I'll add one more: the ABC behaving like a law unto itself. There's another one for you. Add that to the list. Here we are today—another day, another scandal from the national broadcaster. Hopefully, it's not the national broadcaster for too much longer. I dream of the day when the coalition or the United Australia Party is back in power and—do you know what we do?—we defund them. That's what we'd do. I would support that. Straight to trash heap of history! That's where they belong—the trash heap of history. Ita Buttrose, I hope you're watching. That's where you're going. With the ABC falsely labelling— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Senator Babet, would you resume your seat. I give the call to Senator Dean Smith. Senator Dean Smith 241710 Senator Babet has a very strong and credible reputation for colourful presentations in the Senate, but Ms Ita Buttrose is an outstanding Australian, who has made a very strong contribution. I take that wave as an acknowledgement, Senator Babet, that you'll— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Senator Smith, what is your point of order? Senator Green 259819 There is no point of order. Senator Dean Smith 241710 I just— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 There is no point of order. I think that Senator Smith is just— Senator Dean Smith 241710 I have made my point. The ACTI NG DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 And it wasn't made particularly orderly. What I have endeavoured to do, since taking the chair, given the hour, is to allow a little bit of free backwards and forwards, but I will call the chamber to order. I will encourage senators not to feed the high level of energy that's in the room at the moment by interjecting. Senator Hanson-Young? Senator Hanson-Young I0U My point of order is on relevance. I want to point out that Senator Babet did say that, when the coalition are back in government, they're going to defund the ABC. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 I don't think that's a point of order, Senator Hanson-Young. I have been listening carefully to Senator Babet. He is speaking to the matter that is before the chair. I call your attention to the contributions from your colleagues in the chamber, Senator Babet. Honourable senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Order, senators. If you want to have a conversation, leave the chamber. Senator Smith if you could resume your seat, it would assist the chair at the moment. Senator Babet, you have the call. Use it wisely. Senator BABET 300706 Let's get back to business. Let's get back to the business of the Senate. What is the business of the Senate? It is robust debate. It is parliamentary privilege. Ladies and gentlemen, that's what it's about. I've got to speak my mind. I've been put here by the United Australia Party. I've been put here by some of the coalition's own previous voters. That's who put me here, and I'm happy to be here. Senator BABET 300706 I'm not from Queensland; thank you, Senator Scarr. I go back to the ABC. Were the ABC falsely labelling the good people of Alice Springs as white supremacists? Were the ABC disgracefully labelling the royal family as a bunch of— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Senator Babet, please resume your seat. Senator Babet and other senators in the chamber, given the hour of the day, I've given a little leniency. I am going to call the chamber to order. I remind senators that interjecting is disorderly and it is not assisting the good governance of the chamber. Senator Babet, it would be helpful if you could lower the volume a little too. You have the call, Senator Babet. Senator BABET 300706 Were the ABC—I'm sure you will all remember this—disgracefully labelling the royal family as a bunch of colonialists? Am I wrong or am I right? I think I'm right when I say that, because that's what they did do. Were the ABC wrongly accused the 'no' campaign of using AI generated Aboriginals to promote the 'no' case? I saw that quite recently. I could stand here all day today and all day tomorrow and list the outrageous indiscretions of our taxpayer funded broadcaster. There are a lot of them; this is just one in a long list. But, no, this time their failure appears to be far more sinister. Is that even possible? I don't know if it is, but maybe it is. They turned up at a private citizen's residence in what was, in my opinion, almost—almost, so not quite—akin to a home invasion. That should be beyond the pale. That is what it should be—am I crazy or what? It should be that even for the ABC. But evidently, no, it is not. The ABC claimed that their crew didn't know where they were going that morning. They didn't know, apparently! The ABC claimed that their crew didn't know at whose house they were filming when they started gathering that footage. They didn't know! The ABC claimed that their team remained on private property. That is what they claimed! Well, the evidence from the video footage shows that what happened was quite contrary to their claim. The national broadcaster, ladies and gents, senators in this place, people watching at home, is not a law unto itself. It is paid for, funded by the taxpayer. They're who pay for it. Taxpayers like who? Like Meg O'Neill, whose home was, in my opinion—it's just my opinion—attacked as our national broadcaster stood by and filmed. The UAP and I support the inquiry into the ABC's conduct in this matter—of course I do. I would support any inquiry into the ABC—bring them on! Do you know what I am looking forward to? Dragging them in front of estimates—that's what I am looking forward to do. As reps of the taxpayer—that's what we are—it is our duty to hold our taxpayer funded broadcaster to account. This is just the latest incident of many. To the ABC I say: we must hold you to account, we must delve into what you are up to, we must unravel the mess that you are and we must set you straight. Hopefully, this is just a step one in that process. 19:12 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I rise to speak on this topic when it is starting to get a little late in the day, but I am going to bring the temperature in the room down. I wish to speak on the issue of referring the conduct of the ABC to the Environment and Communications References Committee because I think it is actually a very, very serious issue and one that is worthy of investigation by the Senate committee system. That has been my view from the first moment I heard about this incident. I spoke about this on the evening it happened in an adjournment debate. I think we all, when we heard about this, recognised instantly what a serious incident this was. I want to read from the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance guidance to journalists for dealing with extremists: Extremists seek to use the media as a platform for their actions. Do your utmost to prevent this and don't allow yourself to be used to promote extremist views or hate speech. The group in question that was being reported on by the Four Corners program has knowingly acted in a way designed to invoke fear, to intimidate, to provoke terror. The group in question released an unknown gas into the Woodside headquarters in Perth, causing the evacuation of all staff. Clearly the ABC knew about this—or they should have known about this. Presumably it was part of the piece of investigative journalism they were undertaking. They knew the track record of this group—an extremist group that seeks to provoke fear, that seeks to intimidate, that seeks to terrorise. They knew that before they sent the film crew to WA. These individuals, it has now been shown, were at Ms O'Neill's place of residence on the two nights before the morning in question, doing surveillance. One of the key questions I have for the ABC is: was it aware of that surveillance of a private person's home in the middle of the night? If so, what did it do with that information? Then we have the morning in question—early in the morning, supposedly. There has already been one piece of misinformation supplied by the ABC in light of this incident, but this is what we know so far. They received a call in the early morning giving them an address. As my colleague Senator Cash and others have said, as soon as you see an address, as soon as you type it into your GPS, you know that it is a residential area. This is not something that requires sophisticated investigation. This is not something that requires journalistic sleuth work. The second you type it into your GPS, you know it is a residential address. Knowing what this group has done in the past, knowing the kinds of activities they undertake—the fear, the intimidation and the terror they seek to impose on people—and then having the information, the ABC crew was directed to a residential address in the early hours of the morning. Massive red flags should have gone up at that point. I don't think this Senate should accept the idea that the ABC will undertake an investigation into this themselves. I don't think that is acceptable in the circumstances I have just outlined. This group is a radical organisation that has clearly got a track record of invoking fear, of invoking terror and of releasing an unknown gas into a high-rise tower with hundreds of workers in it, causing it to be fully evacuated. They surveilled an individual's home two nights running in the lead-up to the early morning events that have made such prominent news. On the night of the event, when I spoke in this place, I congratulated federal Labor minister Madeleine King and state Labor minister Johnston for their swift condemnation of this. This is not a partisan exercise. I continue to congratulate Minister Madeleine King in particular for being very clear that these actions are not acceptable in Australia. But it is the right of the Senate, in light of the events that I have outlined, to undertake an inquiry into this at the earliest possible opportunity while the matter is fresh in people's minds, while the information is clear and available—not in six months time after the ABC has done its internal process and whatever will come out has come out. The time to hold an inquiry is while the information is fresh and available and while the people involved can talk about what happened. I really do ask those opposite to consider supporting this referral to a committee. Again, this is not a committee that is controlled by one side of parliament or the other. These are Senate committees that do good work, often in a bipartisan way, and I am personally very disturbed by the actions of the protest group in the first place but also by the actions of the ABC in their approach to these issues. In reflecting on this, and perhaps in reflecting on my immediate and visceral reaction to the events of that morning, my mind immediately went back to a program on Radio National that I was listening to a couple of weeks before. I happened to be in the car, driving in regional Australia, and I flicked on the radio and one of the few stations I could get was Radio National. I was listening along, and I can't remember which show it was precisely, to an interview with an environmental group talking about this very issue and the lengths that they believed were acceptable to go to in order to achieve their outcome. Basically, the conclusion of the conversation on the ABC was that the ends justify the means—you hear that conversation and then you see these kind of events occurring, like the release of gas in Woodside's headquarter building in Perth. Woodside is a proud Western Australian company, a great contributor to Western Australian society and to the Western Australian economy—a significant export earner for our state, employing many thousands of Western Australians over a long period of time. It's a great Western Australian success story. I don't know Ms O'Neill well. I have met her a couple of times, and I know that anyone who reaches the kind of position that she has reached will certainly not be intimidated by this kind of behaviour. But this is not the kind of behaviour we want in our country. This is not the acceptable way, no matter what your views are. This is not an acceptable approach to protest. The end does not justify the means. We should not ever accept that the ends justify the means, particularly when it comes to protest and civil discourse, and the very important right that people have to free speech, to state their position on issues and to publicly protest if that's what they wish to do. This approach not only undermines that freedom of protest but it also undermines why media institutions have guidelines like these; why the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance produces guidelines that assist them in dealing with extremist behaviour so we can preserve those freedoms. If the media does not take this seriously—and the ABC particularly, because the ABC is in a special place; it is the publicly funded broadcaster, it does get its resources from the taxpayers of Australia. If it's not willing to abide by guidelines such as these, to take them seriously and not facilitate extremists by giving them a platform in the way that they seem to have in that early morning last week, then I think we tread a very dangerous path. I commend the motion to the Senate. 19:24 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I, too, rise in support of this very important motion. I note that there has been some invective and a bit of emotion used in opposition to this motion, but I think this is probably one of most important issues that this Senate should review. I say that for a couple of reasons. First of all is the issue of the sanctity of people's homes. In this case it was a pre-eminent businesswoman in Perth, Meg O'Neill, who is the CEO of an outstanding Western Australian and Australian company. But that aside, it should be that everybody is safe. I listened to Labor speakers earlier on saying, 'Well, yes, this is an important issue, but we don't need to refer it to a Senate inquiry.' Yes, we do. If any of you opposite had that happen to you, if you had protesters who had recently gassed a building in what I could only describe as akin to domestic terrorism, if you had them turn up to your house, case your house and then have a home invasion of your house at 6.30 in the morning, simply because you are a senator or had a different point of view from them, you would be the first ones not only to refer this to the police but to refer it to the Senate for a Senate inquiry. The issues that come to light from this go far beyond one person in one home. Everybody has a right to feel safe. Whether you're the CEO of a company, whether you are a bricklayer or whether you are a politician, you have the right to be safe in your own home from what look to be domestic terrorism-like activities. When you have a look at the four misguided people who were doing this most horrific thing of terrorising people in their own homes, they couldn't even say what they were protesting about. This then brings on the next question in my mind, which is: what the hell were Four Corners doing there in the first place? Social activism has no place, whether, as we've seen in the last 24 hours, it's the DPP, or whether it is the ABC or a news journalist. If you want to be a social activist, fantastic. As Senator Brockman has just read out from the media alliance guidelines, you do not allow yourself to become a tool of a protest group. That is exactly what Four Corners have done yet again. They became the story rather than reporting the story. I find it completely beyond belief, as other people have said here tonight, that Four Corners could claim that they just turned up to this domestic address in Perth at 6.30 in the morning and there was this protest or this home invasion that was about to occur. 'We just happened to have our cameras here, but we didn't really know what was going on.' What a load of complete bunkum. They knew exactly what they were there to do. That's why they were in Perth. They were there to film this group of probably somewhat amateur protestors, to give them a voice and to give them a platform on their program. Disgrace on Four Corners and disgrace on the ABC. The ABC certainly cannot be trusted to do this inquiry into themselves, because guess what they'll find in a few months time? 'Nothing really to see here. Oops, we got it wrong. They were actually on the driveway on the property. We thought they were out.' They cannot investigate themselves. Do you know what they won't investigate? They are not going to be investigating what Four Corners was doing there in the first place when actually doing this story. They were there as activists and they were there to promote activism, which is what the media alliance guidelines warns prudent and professional journalists not to do. I say to all in this chamber that this motion should be supported because this is exactly the issue that we should be looking at in this place. This is not just about Meg O'Neill and it's not just about Four Corners becoming an activist program. This is about a much greater principle for each and every one of us here and everybody else in Australia. We have to say, 'It is not okay to be an activist and to threaten somebody's home.' Apart from anything else, how cruel is it? Anybody who's actually had someone try to break into their home— Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 74 ADJOURNMENT Albanese Government 74 19:30 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania A fresh start for Australia: that is what the Albanese Labor government is comprehensively delivering by enshrining Jobs and Skills Australia as a permanent body this week. We are converting decades of lost rhetoric and grandstanding into real action and results by finalising the establishment of Jobs and Skills Australia. The Albanese Labor government is linked to the success of the Australian economy. Let's be clear: we are entering a new era after a lost decade of inaction and shameful neglect in this area by previous Liberal governments. We were left with no choice but to wonder if they were too focused on harassing the most vulnerable Australians to address their substantive issues around the economy with robodebt. Remember that? It was their deliberate intention, as I said, to punch down. As they admitted in this very chamber, their whole strategy was to keep wages low. That was the main feature of their industrial relations architecture. I repeat: it was to keep wages low for all Australian workers so that they had minimal take-home pay. And now those opposite dare to debate our positive plan for Australians in this chamber with no shame. This is in direct contrast to what the Albanese government wants to do. It's a deliberate contrast to what the Australian people voted for. They voted for change. They voted for a new government that was going to deliver on the issues that they raised with us during the election campaign, and we're delivering on those election commitments. We are finding ways to assist with the cost-of-living concerns. We are trying to address the housing crisis, but we know the Liberals, the Nationals and the Greens, along with Pauline Hanson, are doing everything they can to stifle and not support the legislation to establish the housing future fund. We know that we're the ones that advocated for and delivered on the 15 per cent pay rise for those working in the aged-care sector. The Liberal and National parties neglected aged-care workers. They didn't want to listen to their concerns. They did nothing to assist them with getting remuneration for the job that they do each and every day. So we're turning the page on that dark chapter. We're addressing the concerns that older Australians and their families have had. And it's not going to stop there. The Liberals and Nationals neglected health care, and we know what they think about Medicare; they would do anything to drive Medicare into the ground. But we're the government. We're the party that supports Medicare. It doesn't matter whether you want to talk about the cost of medicines. We're the ones delivering savings to people. We don't want them to have to make a decision about whether they can afford their pharmacy scripts to be filled. We're extending, so that they can have two months worth of medicines at the same price as 30 days. We know those opposite were given the same advice that we were given in the relation to this, in 2018. But what did they do? They did nothing, because they buckled to their big donors in the Pharmacy Guild. That's what they did. They are now just trying to play politics around that issue, but we want to deliver cheaper medicines. We have delivered on cheaper child care. Australian families are gaining from us being elected, in reduced costs to have their children in child care; it will also allow women and men to return to the workforce. When it comes to jobs and skills, we believe in skilling up our community. We believe in skills and training so that we can prepare our Australians for the jobs of the future. So we are investing in fee-free TAFE places, and we will restore TAFE to where it should have been, after 10 years of neglect. We're doing everything we can, and we understand that interests rates going up is a concern of people with a mortgage. We know there's stress around rents, but the only way you're going to change rents, the only way you're going to relieve mortgages is to actually have more houses being built, making sure that people on low incomes can have affordable housing and that there is social housing to support those people who need it most. So I say to Liberals and the Nationals and the Greens: get out of the way and pass this legislation. Walk for a Veteran 75 19:35 Senator McLACHLAN 287062 South Australia On 29 July, I stood in the darkness of the early morning at the foot of the Seacliff Surf Life Saving Club and listened to the waves roll in. I was awaiting first light and preparing myself to embark on a 42 kilometre journey along Adelaide's beautiful beaches. The walk was to honour our war dead and raise money to assist those veterans who have returned home and are still affected by their service. I was joined by my fellow veterans, their families and friends. This event is organised each year by Walk for a Veteran. I hold the honour of being one of their ambassadors. Walk for a Veteran's focus is to raise awareness about post-traumatic stress and its effects. This stress not only affects those who serve but also affects their family and friends, many of whom struggle with supporting their loved ones when they are suffering from the impacts of their service. Walk for a Veteran not only supports our veterans but also supports South Australia's first responders. First responders suffer from the same mental stress as experienced by our ADF personnel. It's not uncommon for our paramedics, police officers and firefighters to experience trauma on a daily basis, often on more than one occasion each shift, before having to go home and trying to live a normal life with their loved ones. At dawn and before we stepped off, the chair, veteran and founder of Walk for a Veteran, Chad McLaren, delivered a rousing speech and then we embarked on our adventure. The journey took us north along the beach until we reached West Lakes, before we began our return journey to Seacliff. During the day, we walked along some of the most beautiful beaches that our country has to offer. This amazing setting allowed each of us the space to contemplate those less fortunate than ourselves and especially those who bear the scars of their service. One of the more poignant moments was the passing of the Brighton Arch of Remembrance in the early light of the day. The arch left us in no doubt about the reason for our endeavours. This year's Walk for a Veteran event was organised in collaboration with Australian Partners of Defence, better known as APOD. APOD was founded by veterans and is Australia's official veterans benefits program linking businesses to the veteran community. This allowed businesses to tailor their services to the needs of veteran families and, in doing so, recognise the sacrifices that veterans and their families have made to the service of our nation. APOD CEO, Paul Broadbridge, and his staff walked with us and provided incredible support to the event. I thank them for all their hard work to make the day a success. Funds raised from this year's event will be donated to Partners of Veterans Association of Australia to fund student scholarships as well as to police families through the charity SA Police Legacy. I thank all of those who took part in the walk and supported this event, especially the many volunteers who could not do enough for our walkers. I look forward to supporting this great initiative next year. O'Byrne, Mrs Colleen 75 19:38 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I rise to acknowledge and pay tribute to Colleen O'Byrne, an extraordinary mentor, friend and life member of the Australian Labor Party, who passed away at the age of 80 on 2 July. I attended Colleen's funeral service in what was standing room only, such was the respect that Colleen had in the Labor movement and the community. It was a beautiful service for a beautiful woman. Since Colleen's passing, I've heard many stories from her friends and family and from her union, HACSU, about Colleen's generosity—the generosity she gave of her time, the generosity she gave of her knowledge and the generosity of providing invaluable support to a remarkable number of people. Colleen was a stalwart in the Tasmanian branch of the mighty Labor Party. Colleen made me laugh, she provided advice but, most importantly, she listened. And the kindness she showed towards me was not only for me but for the many people who sought Colleen's wise counsel. She became known as the 'matriarch of the north'. Colleen was truly an inspiration for not only me, but countless others who were lucky enough to have crossed paths with her. And that was the trick of Colleen, her extraordinary ability to make each of us feel stronger, important and that your opinion mattered—sending you on your way feeling so good in yourself, smiling knowing Colleen had worked her magic and all was good in the world. Colleen grew up in Deloraine, a regional town in central north of Tasmania. She trained as a nurse. Colleen's caring nature flourished as a disability support worker at St Giles where she worked tirelessly to ensure that others received the care and support they deserved. This dedication to others continued throughout her work as a Lifeline counsellor and hospital cleaner. Working at St Giles, Colleen began her lifelong fight to improve the working conditions for hospital workers as a union delegate for cleaners. Colleen passionately advocated for workers' rights her whole life. This was demonstrated, particularly in her final months, when Colleen distributed union pamphlets from her hospital bed advocating for student nurses. During the presentation of her life membership by the then Labor leader Bill Shorten, Colleen recounted a story of when she was handing out how-to-vote cards for Gough Whitlam. When a man slapped her across the face for campaigning for Gough and said, 'How dare you,' her response was calm, strong as she replied, 'I dare'—again demonstrating her resilience, strength and commitment, attributes that all have been used to describe Colleen over the years. Colleen was a proud woman whose principles and values were plain for all to see. Those principles and values were passed on to her children, Michael, Michelle and David O'Byrne. But Colleen's proudest achievement was her family, and she was a devoted mother and grandmother to all her children and grandchildren. She was so proud that both Michelle and David were elected to parliament as members of her beloved Labor Party. I know how proud Colleen was that David and Michelle both served as ministers of the Crown in a Labor government and both served in cabinet. As we bid farewell to my dear friend, I am reminded of Colleen's significant contribution to the Tasmanian Labor Party and the greater labour movement. Her legacy as a trailblazer and advocate will forever be remembered. Colleen was one of a kind and will be sadly missed, but always remembered in our thoughts and in our hearts. Vale, Colleen O'Byrne. Invasive Species Management 76 19:42 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland We have the Labor Party to thank for the introduction of cane toads into Queensland and Australia, and it looks like we're going to have the Labor Party to thank for the infestation and the growth of fire ants in Queensland and Australia. For those who are listening at home, fire ants are pretty bad things. They're an invasive species that have started spreading throughout the Gold Coast and they're threatening many species of birds, mammals, reptiles and frogs. The flow-on effects from this infestation are actually quite serious because this also impacts upon humans, and we are here to defend humans in terms of their natural environments in Queensland and Australia. What we're seeing on the Gold Coast, and I have to thank Councillor Hermann Vorster for this—we have a council and councillors who are standing up and fighting for their community because they know that the state Labor government and the federal Labor government aren't doing enough to fight fire ants. Already on the Gold Coast we're seeing beaches and parks closed because of this infestation. To eradicate fire ants from Australia, experts argue it will require at least $592 million over the next four years. But what the Labor Party are doing is they're not eradicating the fire ants; they're just going to contain them. That is the wrong strategy. I know a little bit about invasive species because I've had a little bit to do with the yellow crazy ants up in Far North Queensland. When we came to power in 2013, the Labor Party then had a policy of containment rather than eradication, so in 2013, Tony Abbott, the government and Warren Entsch put money into eradicating yellow crazy ants. It is an ongoing project, and we have to do the same thing with these fire ants. So what we have, sadly, is a federal Labor government and a state Labor government who are not doing enough to fight these. Indeed, the Invasive Species Council has said, 'We are in a war and the fire ants are winning. The window to stop dangerous fire ants taking over Australia is rapidly closing.' I call upon the federal Labor government and I call upon the state Labor government to stand up and do something, work with the Gold Coast City Council and work with people like the Councillor Herman Vorster to make sure that we do eradicate these invasive species. Over the coming months, there is going to be a big discussion in Australia about a referendum. We don't know when the date is because the government would like to keep it a secret, like they like to keep everything secret about this referendum. The government is proposing that we change Australia's Constitution but won't tell us any of the detail. It is like the government are trying to sell us a car but are not giving us any details about the car. They are just saying it is a car. We don't know whether it is a Ford, Holden, whether it is manual, automatic, whether it takes diesel. It could be a ute. It could be a tricycle. We just know it is something. You should be pretty worried about that. You should be a bit suspicious about that, when any political party or any government won't tell you the details. If they aren't going to tell you the details, it is a case of 'if you don't know, vote no'. I also think there are 10 reasons—I will count them down—why you should vote no. The Voice is legally risky. The Voice hasn't been road tested. There is no comparable constitutional body like this anywhere in the world. Enshrining a voice in the Constitution means it is open to legal challenge and that means lawyers are going to make a lot of money. There are no details—there is nothing. We saw today in question time coalition shadow ministers ask the Labor ministers some pretty simple questions, and guess what? We got some pretty smoky answers coming back. When I say 'smoky answers', I mean we didn't get answers at all. What we are seeing is we sort of don't know, and this is a bit of a worry because the Labor Party want us to change the Constitution. The Voice is going to divide us. Any political party or any government should be trying to unite the country, and what this voice is doing, what Labor's Canberra voice is doing, is dividing this country. We are in a cost-of-living crisis at the moment. People have power bills going through the roof, mortgages going through the roof, insurance bills going through the roof. Everything is going through the roof; in fact, there is no roof left because so much stuff is going through the roof. But what are the Labor Party talking about all the time? They are talking about the Voice and about something that is going to divide this country. Shame on the Labor Party for that. You should be doing things that bring us together as a country. Senator Nampijinpa Price, to quote my good friend, said, 'The voice will not unite us. It will divide us by race.' That should be a message to everybody in this chamber, because the Constitution is something that belongs to all Australians. The fourth reason is it won't help Indigenous Australians; it won't. It is just going to be something for people to—we don't know what it is going to do. We don't know the details but we know it is not going to help Indigenous Australians because we all want to help Indigenous Australians but we don't need to change the Constitution to do that. In fact, what Canberra needs is more ears. It needs more eyes. It doesn't need another voice. Canberra needs to listen and open its eyes to the problems that already exist and work with communities rather than adding another level of bureaucracy. No issue is beyond its scope. This Voice model is not just to parliament; it goes to all areas of executive government. That means all government departments, the Reserve Bank. I saw in the paper the other day one of the proponents to the Voice is saying it is going to get involved with AUKUS, so we will have this third body that will stick its nose into everything—fair play to it—but what about the Senate and what about the House of Reps? This is why we have elections in this country. We elect people to this chamber and the other place to make decisions. Suddenly we're going to have this other mob who are going to stick their nose into everything. Reason No. 6 is that it risks delays and disfunction. In the Australian parliament we deal with hundreds of pieces of legislation each year. The cabinet deals with many, many issues each week. The Voice's scope goes beyond parliament. It covers departments and agencies. How is The Voice going to handle this? It's going to delay everything. Everything has to go through this, until it gets the big stamp that says yes or no or we don't know or let's consider it. It is going to delay decision-making. If you think Canberra is slow at the moment, if you think it is a little bit of a turtle or a snail, that will be nothing compared to that slowness. I don't know what the reverse of steroids is, but it's going to be like a dead turtle. It is just not going to move at all. Reason No. 7 is that it will open the door to activists. Remember our good friend, Thomas Mayo? He will end up on The Voice, and you're going to have 'ex' communists. It's not that he has joined the IPA—he is still very left wing—it's just there is no communist party left in this country. You will have people like him being the de facto decision-makers. Reason No. 8 is that it is going to be costly and bureaucratic. Reason No. 9 is that it is going to be permanent, because the Constitution, once you change it, doesn't get reversed. So you're going to have the Voice as a permanent, bureaucratic delay-making type of machine that is just going to divide Australians. Reason No. 10 is: there are better ways forward. On this side of the chamber, we do support Indigenous recognition, and we have done so for decades, actually. We do support that. What the Prime Minister should be doing is putting forward a model that supports Indigenous recognition. Guess what? Ninety per cent of Australians—95 per cent—of Australians would vote for that model. But, no, the Prime Minister wants to play ugly politics. He wants to divide Australians. I say: shame on the Prime Minister. When it comes to the Prime Minister, it is interesting that there are parts of Queensland he doesn't go to. He's never been to Burketown and he's never been to Doomadgee. This is important, because these areas got smashed by floods earlier this year—absolutely smashed, Senator Caddell—in a huge natural disaster. But, of course, because there were no TV cameras or newspapers there—and the internet is pretty dodgy because the Labor government aren't great with communications—the Prime Minister has not turned up to an area that got smashed by a natural disaster. I say to the Prime Minister: please go to Burketown and Doomadgee. Meet with the Ernie Camp, the Mayor of the Bourke Shire Council. Meet with Ernie's wife, Kylie. Hello Kylie and Ernie. They are solid citizens of this county. Work with them to ensure that the resilience of the Bourke Shire and Doomadgee Shire come together. It should be beyond party politics. Tumbers, Mr Michael Frederick Hugh (Mick) 78 19:53 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Michael Frederick Hugh Tumbers, a leader of the South Australian labour movement across five decades, sadly passed away recently at the age of 78. Mick was a true comrade. There is no-one you would rather know was supporting you in a political fight, and no adversary was more feared. A figure who commanded attention and respect, his physical stature presaged his intellectual heft, and his presence dominated any room. One of the best orators the movement had, his contribution in every context was substantial. He could blow people and arguments away with fierce wit and powerful reasoning built on strong historical and philosophical foundations. When Mick commenced a metal trades apprenticeship at the age of 13, he found himself in a workshop of militant and active trade union members. With them, he learnt the trade and he learnt much more through their recounting of life experiences, which included living through the Great Depression, and their ideological perspectives, which were well-formed. Mick narrowly avoided national service, an outcome with which he was not displeased. The metal workers union had commenced campaigning against Australia's involvement in Vietnam, and he became involved with like-minded individuals who also opposed the conflict. He recounted that it was a combination of ideological and philosophical opposition to the war that resonated with him. His increased activism led to Mick filling a temporary organising vacancy in the union, which had a long tradition of its officials being skilled in the trades they represented. Following election, he became a vital contributor to it and its successors for close to 40 years. He became secretary of the union in South Australia and also served at the pinnacle of the United Trades and Labour Council of South Australia. Mick Tumbers was a great union leader who evinced courage and principle in both industrial campaigns and the bitter internal battles he had to fight. Relentless in his defence of workers and their industrial rights, his friend Peter McCusker recalls Clyde Cameron describing Mick as 'the best trade unionist of his generation'. Mick Tumbers held office at a time when the movement was a greater part of peoples' lives. Whilst organising became more difficult as this declined, what has not receded is the significance of his achievements as part of a collective that broke new ground in achieving industrial standards that have since become common expectations. For the movement as a whole, the 'metals' were the great hope. Comprised of highly skilled members with broad award coverage, time and again they provided breakthroughs on issues like flexible work hours, equal pay, job security and unfair dismissal. Through their navigation of the industrial system and with leaders like Mick, who applied himself indefatigably to solving problems, and thinking laterally to find new ways through they paved the path for other unions to achieve similar gains in their own industries. These achievements are now enshrined in Australians' expectations of basic industrial standards despite decades of attempts by coalition governments to strip them away. Mick was closely connected with his members, uncompromising in his commitment to their welfare and rights. If an incident occurred in a workplace, he'd be straight down there. He was never about power for himself. Rather than beating his own drum, he was a warrior for those he represented and often underestimated by others. He helped bring people into the movement, too. I understand that, with Doug Cameron, he even interviewed Senator Ayres for his first job at the union. Following his career as a union official, Mick served as an electorate officer to South Australian Labor senators Nick Bolkus and Anne McEwen. He brought the same tenacious attitude to this role as he did in pursuit of outcomes for union members, dedicated to helping those who needed assistance and advocacy. Within the Labor Party, he advanced progressive causes and people. In every endeavour, Mick Tumbers made the sum of the whole greater than that of its individual parts through his leadership, commitment and passion. Mick Tumbers' character and vision shaped his union and our party, particularly the Left, for a generation and beyond. Without his support I would have struggled to enter parliament, and I have never forgotten this. Mick may have been a public figure, but he was a private man who loved his family. He and his partner, Max, shared so much politically, philosophically and ideologically. The depth and power of the love between them is something I will always remember. Max said that Mick was the funniest, smartest man she had ever known. They shared a journey in trade unionism and in life and they each were the other's rock when times were tough. Mick was a progressive man, ahead of his time. He was repulsed by backwards attitudes, particularly when it came to women's rights and racial equality. Some would describe him as a man's man, but he was surrounded by strong women and he was emphatic about the need to organise women in the workplace, especially important in an environment where women were marginalised in male dominated industries. He backed women personally, too, using the power of the union to support their campaigns, and brought men onside to recognise that this advanced the cause of all workers. Through his engagement and community activism, he brought this power to bear to provide assistance where it was needed most, such as gathering signatures to back a motion supporting women's shelters. This was typical of his sense of justice, his inexhaustible commitment to righting wrongs and his uncompromising commitment to the welfare of workers and the marginalised. Mick Tumbers passed away in July. He was a unionist who pursued industrial objectives for the singular benefit of union members and the broader working class, including when it came to workplace injuries and diseases. After decades representing asbestos laggers and engineers, it was a cruel irony that it would be mesothelioma that claimed his life. I regret I didn't have the opportunity to visit him at Eden Valley in his final weeks. I want to close this contribution with his own observations. Mick reminded us: 'The trade union movement is a living thing. Despite ultraconservative attacks on workers, it will prevail.' So too will the memory and legacy of Mick Tumbers. I extend my condolences, my deepest sympathy, to his family, especially to Max and to Shauna, his daughter, as well as to his many friends and comrades from across the labour movement, who mourn this most immense loss. I know their grief will never leave them, but I hope they carry it more lightly with time. Workplace Bullying, Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault 79 20:00 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland The Albanese government claims to champion the victim, but as time goes by it's becoming more and more evident that this Prime Minister and his colleagues in both chambers have been up to their necks creating victims for their own political gain. I congratulate the Australian newspaper for continuing to pursue honest reporting on the Brittany Higgins case, which has demonstrated how this Prime Minister and his government pursued a political outcome rather than a proper judicial conclusion. Not only has it brought the Labor Party's behaviour into further disrepute; we're now getting a taste of how questionably the ACT's Director of Public Prosecutions acted in the matter as well. Sadly, this isn't out of character for Prime Minister Albanese. You see, the PM covertly plays the man, not the ball. We're seeing that play out with his attacks on those who speak out against his Voice to Parliament as well as those involved in the Higgins case. We saw it play out in the case of Peter Slipper, who, without question, sexually harassed James Ashby. The Prime Minister picks winners and losers based on politics. If you're on the wrong side of his political agenda, prepare to get whacked. The price tag for a political scandal is now set at a minimum cost of $2 million, and the Prime Minister picks young, vulnerable targets. It's the exact same behaviour he exhibited as Leader of the House under Julia Gillard. Desperate to keep Peter Slipper in as Speaker, the member for Grayndler helped change management liability insurance arrangements for MPs and senators that effectively gave Peter Slipper a blank cheque to defend himself against multiple sexual harassment claims brought against him. Just like in the Higgins matter, Prime Minister Albanese picked his winner, then set about deliberately annihilating the credibility and reputation of James Ashby in an attempt to save Peter Slipper, instead of allowing the court process to play out. Despite a successful appeal by Mr Ashby, Labor continued to torch the victim by allowing Peter Slipper to run James Ashby's legal bills up to $4.5 million. This was the first time a staffer had had the courage to publicly fight, instead of the long history of staff who have been mistreated and then encouraged to quietly go away. The Jenkins and Foster reviews have confirmed this very fact in black and white. Let me read you some of the text messages Peter Slipper sent to his staff member. On 10 October 2011 he sent: Funny how we say that a person is a cunt when many guys like cunts!;) In a follow-up message that same day, the Speaker wrote: They look like a mussell removed from its shell. Look at a bottle of mussel meat! Salty Cunts in brine! These are text messages from the former Speaker of the House, handpicked by the now PM, Anthony Albanese, and defended by then prime minister Julia Gillard. Despite the nature of these messages, Labor had the gall to claim Mr Ashby's case was politically motivated. The sexual harassment got worse, from punishment for not accepting sexual advances—again in text messages—to asking Mr Ashby why he didn't shower with the door open when the two shared an apartment on a trip to Canberra. While it might be common practice for parliamentarians to share apartments with staff or other politicians in Canberra, it's highly abnormal for them to ask their roommate why they shower with the door closed. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Point of order, Senator Hanson. Please pause the clock. Quoting from other sources does not make it any less disorderly in terms of reflecting on members of the other place. I would like to call your attention to the standing orders and for you to consider that in the remainder of your remarks. Senator HANSON BK6 Unfortunately for Mr Ashby, there was no adequate complaint and reporting process for this sort of behaviour in parliament until after the Jenkins review a decade later. Even the Department of Finance has acknowledged this, and yet the department plays an active role in preserving this appalling culture. Politicians do the dirty business, and the department gags victims with nondisclosure agreements. It's a well-oiled machine that enables political Harvey Weinsteins to go on their merry way with hardly any consequences or accountability. It's a disgusting ecosystem of abuse and suppression, enabled by the systemic role of the department in covering up misconduct by both sides, and it's in desperate need of its own inquiry. What the public don't realise is that Slipper was a prolific predator who was allowed to exploit young male victims unhindered, and his recurring conduct was enabled by the Department of Finance, with payout after payout. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Senator Hanson, I call your attention to the standing orders in terms of reflecting on members of the other place. Senator HANSON BK6 They're not a member of the other place at this time, so therefore I have every right to disclose what was in text messages and before the courts. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T I'm sure that, under the standing orders, people will draw their own attention to the remarks that you have made. I'll let you continue. Senator HANSON BK6 But, when one of his victims had the courage to stand up, that victim was ground down by the deep pockets of the department. One of Slipper's young male staff members who alleged sexual harassment felt forced to record a video of Slipper's conduct in order to put an end to the harassment. Of course this video never saw the light of day, but sworn evidence exists from someone who has no vested interest whatsoever, who was at the young male staffer's house when he was visited through the window by Mr Slipper and who saw the video. That video was brought to the attention of then Prime Minister John Howard, but he didn't want to know about it when Slipper was a sitting member of his party. By Mr Howard's ignoring Slipper's behaviour, he unconsciously helped cover up Slipper's actions, which eventually created more victims of Mr Slipper, a serial sexual predator. Another young male member of Slipper's staff suddenly disappeared and, when approached to give evidence, had legal advice to not discuss what had happened. The gag was so tight that the only person who would talk was the young man's mother, who said to Mr Ashby, 'My sister said that one day God would send a person to put a stop to Slipper's behaviour, and maybe you're that person.' There was another man in Queensland to whom Slipper made sexual advances at the same time he was recruiting James Ashby. The story of Peter Slipper and his time in office is a story of repeated sexual harassment of young gay staffers that he recruited to work for him. He abused his office, which had a constant stream of bright and ambitious young men that he would groom for his own gratification. He did all this while hiding behind the facade that he was a married man and a person who had the integrity and moral standing to hold an elected office. When James Ashby had the courage to kick off proceedings against Slipper and the Commonwealth, the Labor government brought all of its wrath and resources down upon James. The Commonwealth itself blew $800,000 of taxpayer money to run Mr Ashby into the ground before the matter even reached a hearing. That in itself is an absolute disgrace. Then the Labor Party spent millions defending Mr Slipper but not the victim. James Ashby settled his case with the Commonwealth in order to focus on bringing Mr Slipper to justice and on stopping his conduct. Mr Ashby settled for a paltry $50,000 plus an important commitment that the Commonwealth would implement sexual harassment training for all elected members. Mr Ashby did not anticipate that the government would not only fail to properly introduce that training but would also bankroll Mr Slipper's continued legal defence and conduct. The Labor government would go on to exclude parliamentary staff from whistleblower protection legislation being proposed in the parliament and pass further legislation that would fund the legal defence of political Harvey Weinsteins while leaving their victims to fend for themselves. Worse still, this parliament hangs a prominent portrait of a sexual predator in the Mural Hall, to rub further salt into the wounds of his victims. It's time the PM answers a simple question: why will his government pay millions in compensation to Brittany Higgins, yet when the overwhelming evidence that led to the unprecedented and historical resignation of the Speaker was presented he has not even offered Mr Ashby an apology and to cover his legal costs for the hell he was put through? It's time the Labor government right this travesty and cover Mr Ashby's legal costs and correct this shameful injustice. Freedom of Speech 80 20:10 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania If you were to ask Australians who they least trust to decide what is true or false, government and big tech would be at the top of the list. There is very little more chilling to the concept of democracy and free speech than a government which pronounces that it and its powerful friends will decide what is true and what is false. It is a tactic of authoritarian governments to censor the media and the internet to prevent and suppress challenges to their authority. Of course, these authoritarian regimes rarely tell their citizens that they're censoring the internet to silence political opposition. They say that they are removing misinformation which causes public harm. Australians do not want to live in a country where a government overseer breathing down the neck of private companies can force public statements by its citizens to simply disappear, or where elected officials or social media executives sitting in another country can declare something as undesirable and that it is false, even if it happens to be true, and to have it removed from the public square by the high inquisitors in big tech. Labor is using its own misinformation against Australians by claiming that it won't actually be the government responsible for the censorship it's demanding, even as it threatens businesses with huge fines and criminal penalties if those companies don't comply with Labor's wishes. Does anyone really believe that social media companies won't censor more and more content that they think the government won't like as a result of Labor's proposed censorship laws? Do you really trust that if this law passes you won't have government officials and staffers picking up the phone to their contacts in social media companies and suggesting it might be in their interests to take down content challenging the government, lest the regulator suddenly decide that they are not doing enough to tackle misinformation? Australians are not stupid. Everyone knows the internet is full of false information. But a fellow citizen being wrong or disagreeing with the government is not a threat to our democracy. The real threat to our democracy is the government and its powerful friends controlling the flow of information. As if social media companies haven't already been enthusiastic enough at censoring opinions which challenges the politically favoured narrative, now we have the Labor government demanding that they do more of it. What's worse is that Labor's proposed censorship laws make clear that they have no intention of holding themselves to the same standards that they will impose on the rest of us because Labor's laws brazenly exempt any information from their own government from being considered misinformation. Under this proposal, if the Labor government says up is down and down is up, that cannot be considered misinformation. It could even be argued that content from foreign universities or bodies like Confucius institutes will be protected from being represented as misinformation. This Orwellian censorship bill is aimed squarely at the government's own citizens and limiting what you can say and where you can say it. The Labor Party has given the game away by repeatedly labelling genuine and valid criticism of its own policies as misinformation. Indeed, for years those on the political left have successfully used cries of hate speech to censor criticism of their ideology. They have enacted laws making it difficult to make even the most commonsense mainstream comments like, 'Males should not be in women's sport,' or 'Male sex offences shouldn't be placed in women's prisons,' without being subject to legal threats. Labelling anything they don't like as misinformation is simply the new hate speech. It gives governments, bureaucrats and those with power the ability to simply label the opinions of average Australians as unspeakable and silence them. And when they can't bully you into self-censoring, they will just bully the social media platforms into censoring you. Whether you're from the Left, the Right or anywhere in between, we should all recognise in a democracy that censorship of political debate and discussion does not protect the public. The only people it protects are those in power who don't want to be challenged. Homelessness Week, Climate Change 81 20:15 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria In recognition of national Homelessness Week, I would like to share a story from someone who contacted my office who is part of a growing cohort of homeless people. Sadly, this story is about just one of the 122,000 people across Australia who experience homelessness on any given night. The constituent, who wishes to remain anonymous, wants the Senate to hear about how she was forced into insecure housing due to meagre income support payments which cannot keep up with skyrocketing rental costs. She said: I'm currently 45 years old, on the Disability Support Pension with chronic health issues and severe mental health issues. I'm currently homeless. Due to my very limited income, it is near impossible for me to find another rental. I was evicted 6 months ago from my previous rental of 9 years because the real estate wanted to double the rent and couldn't do so with me in the property. I'm currently staying in a caravan park which is dangerous and very unsafe for my health paying $350 per week with no cooking facilities, no heating, and no in-home bathroom facilities. My physical health and mental health have never been so bad. I'm also now separated from my carer and my family members, again. It's dangerous to my health, as there isn't enough room here. Homelessness means more than sleeping without a roof over your head. It can mean finding refuge in crisis accommodation, sleeping in a car or relying on the kindness of friends to get by. The housing crisis and rising financial stress are pushing more than 1,600 people into homelessness each month as demand for shelter soars. According to Homelessness Australia, women and children make up 74 per cent of those accessing services. Recently, we've seen more than 80 housing organisations calling on the federal government to limit rent increases and improve renters' rights. The government must put a billion dollars on the table at National Cabinet to coordinate a national freeze and cap on rent increases and agree to spend $2.5 billion at least per year on public and affordable housing. When addressing the housing crisis, income support payments must be part of the conversation. More than three million people in Australia are living in poverty, barely able to keep up with the cost of food, medicine and housing in a cost-of-living crisis. The income support payments they receive do not match the surging rent costs and the skyrocketing costs of living. The $4-a-day increase to JobSeeker last week just did not cut it. Housing security and social security are fundamental rights. It is time for Labor to stop playing politics with poverty. It is time to end homelessness for good. Which extreme heat record, which hottest ocean temperature record or which record on the smallest extent of sea ice should I focus on tonight? A month ago, we experienced the earth's hottest days in over 100,000 years. It is 'global boiling', in the words of UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. There is zero doubt that we are in a climate crisis. We may have passed climate tipping points that are going to lead to massive upheavals in life as we know it on our small, blue-green planet. Heating is causing the breakdown of ocean and air circulation—currents that have been in place for tens of thousands of years. Heating is causing the thawing of Arctic permafrost and releasing vast amounts of methane. Heating is causing massive forest fires, turning forests from carbon sinks to carbon sources. People who understand the science are in despair as people in this place pat themselves on the back for the excellent work we're doing as we sit on a runaway train that's hurtling towards a broken bridge, with brakes that don't work. 'Don't worry,' they say, 'We've managed to reduce the speed of the train from 300 kilometres an hour to 150 kilometres an hour. All good! Have another glass of bubbly!' In my first speech, I said that I hoped it would be during my time in this place that Australia turned the corner and legislated to begin the shift to a zero-carbon, safe-climate economy. Nine years on, the lack of progress is more than frustrating. It is hard not to feel despair. Every day in this place we are surrounded by shills for the fossil fuel industry spruiking the opening up of new coal and gas mines that will collectively cook the planet. On the same day we had paediatricians, psychiatrists, family doctors and First Nations peoples visit this place, pleading for the massively polluting, heritage destroying, Beetaloo basin carbon bomb to not go ahead, we had the leader of the government in this place blithely telling us, 'Gas is a transitional fuel and the carbon pollution from outside Australia when this gas is burnt doesn't count, so don't worry.' I don't understand which bit about the crisis Labor, Liberal and Nationals politicians don't get. Are they blind to the devastating fires just over the horizon, or are they just praying that the wind is going to suddenly turn and we will be safe? Or do they really believe we're going to fix the brakes on the train just before we plunge over the edge? Or do they really believe their own deluded selves: 'We're doing the best we can'; 'It's better we are in government than the other side'; 'It really doesn't matter what we do in Australia because of China'? Besides, their mates in the fossil fuel industries are making a motza out of expanding coal and gas. Australia is the biggest exporter of gas and the second-biggest exporter of coal. We are a petrostate. If we got out of coal and gas it would make a huge difference to global carbon pollution. We have the power to really make a difference. Maybe the deniers can't imagine the devastation or that things could possibly go that wrong, that we could have vast swathes of Australia too hot to survive in or huge extents of our coastal cities and beloved beaches underwater, that the climate of our wheat growing areas will become like the climate of the central deserts, that there will be billions of refugees from around the world looking for a home, or the inevitable wars when disputes intensify between countries over land, water and food supplies. Do they just wash their hands and say, 'Oh well, stuff happens and we won't be around then, so why worry'? There are plenty of places to get a glimpse of this dystopia that we are bequeathing to young people alive today. We've got people still living in tents two years on after the devastating floods in northern New South Wales. We've got the fire ravaged communities of Greece and the more than 1,000 fires currently burning across Canada overwhelmingly affecting First Nations communities. We've had the loss of thousands of lives in Peru in the past three to four decades, from glacial lake outburst floods, as the country has lost up to 50 per cent of its glacial ice. These unnatural disasters are only going to continue to get worse and to impact more people. What is it going to take for us to take stock and realise our addiction to coal, gas and oil is killing us and has to stop? I don't want this speech to be all gloom and despair; it's a call for action. The majority of Australians don't want a cooked planet. They would much prefer that we were global leaders in helping to pull humanity back from the brink. What do we need to do? We have to make our democracy work for us. The current crop of Labor, Liberal and Nationals parliamentarians have their heads in the sand—some deeper than others, but they've all got sand in their ears. They are not listening. They are not acting. They have to go. I urge people to join me and join the movement to chuck them out. We need a government that is committed to action on the scale required—a government which will listen to the science, listen to the UN, listen to the peoples of the world and listen to the web of life that we share this planet with. We need a government that is committed to no new coal and gas and to making that shift to that zero carbon future as urgently as we possibly can. I have spent the last 30 years working with others to build the Greens to be part of that government. We need action. We need a government of people that will listen. We need Greens in government. We need people who are not climate denialists in government. The future will either be green or not at all. Freedom of Speech 83 20:24 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Last week I spoke about a very disturbing piece of proposed legislation which has been released in exposure draft, namely the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023. I made a number of comments in relation to that legislation which I'd like to expand upon in this adjournment speech. The first point I want to make is that senators who come and visit me in my office, and all senators here are welcome to come and visit me in my office, will walk between, on your left, a photograph of John Stuart Mill who wrote the magisterial essay 'On Liberty' in 1859 and, on your right, a wax bust of another one of my heroes, Voltaire. I read Voltaire's magnum opus, his most famous work, Candide, when I was in grade 8. My French teacher gave it to me to read. It was one of those books that I carried with me always. Voltaire was someone who practiced freedom of speech with the most ferocious intensity, the most eviscerating wit and he spent time in jail in 1717 because of his satirical verses, which were considered an affront to those in power in France at the time. The value of freedom of speech is at the core of everything I believe in. It is a fundamental freedom and, for as long as I'm in this place, I will ferociously seek to protect it against any assault. The more I look at this legislation, Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill, the more concerned I am. And I recommend that all senators in this place of all parties—senators sitting on the crossbench, senators sitting in government, senators sitting in opposition—should read this bill in detail because it is very concerning. It could well be that those who prepared this legislation had the best of intentions but, as we all know, the best of intentions does not necessarily lead to the best of outcomes, and that is my concern. To put it bluntly: this bill gives too much power to those in government and in particular to those in the bureaucracy. There were three concerns I raised in my two-minute statement last week. The first was the power this bill gives to government officials to determine what is false or misleading. If you turn to section 7 of the bill, it provides that the definition of misinformation is: the content contains information that is false, misleading or deceptive … My concern with that drafting is how many times have we sat in this place and heard accusations across the chamber that one senator or another has said something that is either false or misleading? Who makes that judgement? It should not be people in government making that judgement. It should be people following a debate, making up their own minds, as all Australians are able to do, based on the content and the substance of the arguments before them. The second point of that definition which causes me grave concern is there's an exclusion. So this bill doesn't concern combatting all misinformation and disinformation—of course not! There are exclusions. There is some information which is not captured by this legislation, and to go to that you need to have a look at the definition of 'excluded content for misinformation purposes'. There are a number of interesting inclusions in that regard. The first is that it includes 'professional news content'. So-called professional news content is excluded from the remit of this legislation, but all other news content is not excluded. Then you go to the definition of content 'produced by or for an educational institution accredited by the Commonwealth'. So a comment that a university prepares is excluded from the operation of this bill, but content which someone may put up on the web criticising something a university does falls within the remit of this bill—entirely inappropriate in my view. The piece de resistance, the cherry on top, is the content that is authorised by government—be it Commonwealth government, state government, whatever government—is excluded entirely. So this bill—combatting misinformation, disinformation—does not apply to government publications; it only applies to those who may be criticising government policy inaction. That is a major, major issue at the core of this legislation, that it provides protection for those in power, who have the megaphone, who have the resources and it seeks to police those who do not, and that is a fundamental failing in this legislation. The second point I made in my two-minute statement was the chilling effect this could have on social media platforms. The argument has been made by some that this doesn't provide that ACMA, the communication authority, can go in and force a social media company to delete something or police what is put up on its website. The fact of the matter is that the way the legislation works is that ACMA could potentially use the threat of fines to actually indirectly cause social media platforms to self-censor. This would have a chilling effect on freedom of speech. Table 3 in the guidance note of June 2023 provides that if a digital media platform is in non-compliance with a registered code or standard, the maximum penalty is $2.75 million or two per cent of global turnover. So with that penalty or fine hanging over their heads like the sword of Damocles, one can well understand the chilling effect it could have on digital platforms. Why take the risk if ACMA write you a letter to say that this post or this information is really misinformation or misleading or false and should be removed in accordance with your code of conduct? why take the risk of resistance? Just take it down. That is the second concern I have with this legislation. The third concern I have is around the powers in this bill to coerce ordinary Australians to have to appear before ACMA or provide information to ACMA. Again, I turn to the guidance note, section 5.3, which provides extraordinary information-gathering powers. A digital platform provider or other person who has relevant information, documents or evidence must comply with requests for information from ACMA. ACMA may issue a formal warning to the digital platform provider or person if it is satisfied the person has not complied with the requirements, and these are everyday Australians who could be met with an enforcement order or a notice from ACMA. If they do not comply, they are liable to fines of up to $8,250—again, totally inappropriate. So for those three reasons: firstly, the power it gives to government officials to determine what is false or misleading; secondly, the point that it excludes government from the operation of the bill, so they get a free pass; nobody is watching them; the government is excluded from the bill—the impact the potential fines of millions of dollars would have on digital platforms to actually take down posts and information including, potentially, by members in this place; and lastly, the Draconian powers which ACMA would have under this legislation to coerce everyday Australians to provide information is simply unacceptable. The government should reconsider this legislation and this bill should be put in the bin. Medical Countermeasures Consortium 84 20:33 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, tonight I speak to an aspect of COVID-19 I haven't raised before. Information now in the public domain indicates the COVID response was not initiated through commercial interests but, rather, through an organisation called the Medical Countermeasures Consortium that Australia joined in 2012. According to Australia's defence.gov.au website, the Medical Countermeasures Consortium is a four-nation partnership involving the defence and health departments of Australia, Canada, United Kingdom and the United States. 'The consortium seeks to develop medical countermeasures to assist with … chemical and radiological threats affecting civilian and military populations and on emerging infectious diseases and pandemics.' It includes drugs and diagnostics. Who knew we had a military pharmaceutical apparatus linking the United States, Australia, Canada and the UK, in place since the Gillard Labor government—an AUKUS for pandemics? The consortium maintains a compensation scheme for people injured as a result of taking a countermeasure. Compensation claims were accepted for the 2009 H1N1 vaccine, the anthrax vaccine and flu vaccines. The medical countermeasures unit within the United States Department of Defense has been in the vaccine business for many years and has been injuring people for many years—and getting away with it. So it should come as no surprise that the American Department of Defense signed the first contract between the United States government and Pfizer for the purchase of $11 billion worth of vaccines. President Trump gave the order to the Department of Defense to commence vaccine development and even gave it a cool name: Operation Warp Speed. President Trump reacted, as we in this place reacted, with the best of intentions and the worst of data. Intelligence was used that our security apparatus knew or should have known was wrong. Videos from China of people dropping dead have proven to be fakes produced with the assistance of Chinese intelligence, and they may not have acted alone. These videos should not have made it to the decision-making process in the West. How that happened—how so much fraudulent information was offered to elected members—is a matter for a royal commission. The United States has already started multiple congressional hearings and court cases that will eventually yield the truth. Australia must play its part in this process—our part, for we are truly all in this together to the very end. There are doors to be kicked down, and this time it will not be the doors of everyday Australians, guilty of no crime, who merely spoke the truth on social media. The United States response to COVID brought the Medical Countermeasures Consortium into the process at a very, very early stage. Australia's military were involved early, providing assistance including crowd control, border quarantine, contact tracing and medical personnel—things one would expect the military to help with. Former Prime Minister and profligate officeholder Scott Morrison shuttered the COAG system because it was open and transparent—COAG being the Council of Australian Governments. COAG was not just a single meeting; COAG was a secretariat with committees, including a health committee, liaising across local councils and state and federal government. Although not a constitutional instrument, this COAG structure was very well positioned to administer our COVID response. Why was it abolished and replaced with a military pharmaceutical apparatus? I hope the royal commission asks that question. In place of COAG, Mr Morrison created a secretive so-called National Cabinet, consisting of only the state premiers and territory chief ministers. What was the secret so important that a well-functioning apparatus like COAG had to be demolished and the truth gagged for 30 years? Mr Morrison then appointed a serving military officer, Lieutenant General Frewen, to run Australia's vaccine rollout, rebranded as—wait for it—Operation COVID Shield. The United Kingdom responded to COVID in March 2020 with a massive military operation called Operation Rescript. This moved 23,000 military personnel into a new unit called the COVID support operation, under British powers known as military aid to civilian authorities, MACA. Command of this large military force remained with the military. And Canada—what of Canada? Canada called in the Canadian Armed Forces with 'unprecedented measures'—their words, not mine—under operations LASER and VECTOR. It's clear the Medical Countermeasures Consortium agreement, which the Gillard Labor government signed in 2012, was designed to make pandemic response a military operation, not a civilian health operation. This should have been clear in July 2021, when General Frewen took to the microphone in full military uniform. Australia saw military checkpoints at borders, military guarding medical facilities, military in their hardware on the streets of Sydney and Melbourne locking people in their homes. All of this created a climate of fear and intimidation that facilitated acceptance of the COVID injection. Was this the plan? Has the pharmaceutical industry now donned fatigues? Did our civilian health authorities stand up for established medical principles, based on the Hippocratic oath to prescribe only beneficial treatment? No, they did not. We know our Therapeutic Goods Administration, the TGA, did not review the Pfizer stage II and III clinical trial data and instead relied on the American FDA's paperwork. We know the FDA didn't review the data and instead took Pfizer's word for how the trials went. Surely the TGA knew this. If it did, the TGA's complicit. If it didn't know, the TGA is hopelessly or wilfully negligent. It's misfeasance. Pfizer committed systemic fraud during their clinical trials, with whistleblowers revealing only healthy adult participants were recruited for a stage II/III clinical trial of a vaccine that was intended for the sick and elderly; trial duration was grossly insufficient to capture medium-term and long-term side effects like myocarditis; to drown out the number of adverse events being recorded among real participants, fake participants were created who recorded zero side effects; patients who suffered serious side effects were removed from the study and never existed in the paperwork; and the COVID injection was not tested on pregnant women, and women who fell pregnant were removed from the study before childbirth. The COVID injection was then recommended for pregnant women. How could any human do this? This is inhuman, and it's monsters that did it. Why did Pfizer think they could get away with the most crooked clinical trial in history? Could an answer to this question be found in testimony of a Pfizer executive to US Congress? They made a comment that Pfizer gave the US government the vaccine the government asked for and so claimed Pfizer is not liable for the adverse events. The military appears to have been involved in the cover-up of COVID's origins. It's now clear that COVID was developed during gain-of-function research in China's Wuhan Institute for Virology, connected with the Chinese military. Who funded this research in China? The United States National Institutes of Health, under Anthony Fauci. Canada and Australia were involved in this research. In 2020, the CSIRO put out a press release not only admitting their gain-of-function research but defending it. I've spoken on that previously. After a series of lab escapes involving pathogens at the headquarters of America's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—the CDC—in Georgia, President Obama in 2014 suspended gain-of-function research. Anthony Fauci ignored the president's order and moved the research offshore to Wuhan, China. Gain-of-function research is countermeasure research. It's the same process of finding and manipulating pathogens to produce a new virus—a Frankenstein virus. Once the virus is deadly enough, a vaccine is prepared, and then the whole thing is put on shelf in case an enemy or nature deploys that virus. Once the virus appears in the population, vaccines can be deployed, at a price, of course, because after all this is the corporate United States, racked with parasitic globalist predators. In the early stages of COVID development and escape, did our medical countermeasure apparatus act independently of government? This is a question for a royal commission. Did anyone in this country accept orders from the United States military to do or not do a thing that may have interfered with this military pharmaceutical plan? That's another question for a royal commission. Let me be clear: Australia has a long and enviable history of using our military to assist in civilian disasters to the benefit of all. If the need arises again, we should not hesitate to allow our military to help out again. The military should not be used against law-abiding civilians or against healthy civilians for the purposes of forced injections to transfer wealth to big pharma. What we saw was forced injection of people after succumbing to the threat of deprivation of their family's livelihood and their ability to feed children. Fear, intimidation, blackmail and threats of loss of income and home are elements of force—inhuman force. I have repeatedly said that COVID-19 was severely mismanaged, because it was never about health. It was about control of people and wealth transfer using deceit—deceit that's inhuman, monstrously inhuman. We must know whether our TGA, in waving through a vaccine countermeasure that would not have been approved under normal circumstances, bowed to higher powers. Was this a military pharmaceutical operation or a civilian health operation? These are matters ordinarily dealt with in a royal commission. The Albanese Labor government broke its pre-election promise to have a royal commission. If it continues to break its promise, it will be complicit in hiding truth from the people, truth that is slowly yet relentlessly and inevitably coming out. Call the bloody royal commission now. Tasmania: Renewable Energy 86 20:43 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Did anybody watch the story at the end of the 7.30 Report last night? It was an absolute beauty. Watching this report, I learned that over the last 20 years our biggest infrastructure projects have blown out, and it has cost Australian taxpayers $34 billion. A professor from Oxford University in England, who was on the show, said, 'The main problem is that we don’t think these projects through.' No, we don't think them through. Why? Because politicians in government, especially during election campaigns, want to announce something—anything, really; whatever gets votes—and usually they want to announce something that they call 'nation building'. So, without scoping these projects out properly and doing a thorough business case, they call a press conference, line up their supporters and lock us all in. We have a classic example of that in Tasmania. It's called Marinus—also known as the battery of the nation. The idea is that Tasmania is the battery. Tasmanians first started to hear about Marinus back in 2020, but it has been worked on since 2016. The idea is that we build a big power cable between Tassie and Victoria so that when the mainland is producing too much renewable power we buy it back at a cheap rate. Then, when their sun isn't shining and their wind isn't blowing, we sell them our renewable hydropower at a higher rate. Win, win, right? You'd would think so, for Tassie. Great. When Tasmanians first heard about this in 2020, we were told that the project would create 1,400 jobs and that it would take about four years to build. Just a reminder, that was now three years ago. It isn't built. As a matter of fact, it hasn't even got near the starter blocks. Besides the jobs, Tasmanians were told that the Marinus Link would lower power bills and give our Tassie businesses the renewable power they needed to grow. At the time, Prime Minister Scott Morrison, said '… the technical and economic feasibility is very, very sound.' The only business case Tasmanians saw was the one produced by Hydro Tasmania, which, along with the state Liberal government, was a proponent of Marinus. That's a bit like saying: 'It's my idea and it's a great idea, and here's the business case I wrote saying that it was a great idea, because it is.' In 2020, Tasmanians were told Marinus would cost $3.8 billion. The Tasmanians and the Victorians signed up to contribute 20 per cent of the equity. The remaining 80 per cent was going to be a concessional loan—a loan—from the Commonwealth government's Rewiring the Nation plan. You know what, Tasmanians? Loans have to be paid back. I remember being briefed by Hydro Tasmania back in late 2020, and I thought it sounded like a great idea, too. I was absolutely behind it. I thought: 'This is fab. More jobs for communities in the north-west, more clean energy for our manufacturers and more money coming back into the Tasmanian budget.' Hydro—the goose that laid Tasmania's golden egg! But it seems that Marinus is just another example of politicians getting overexcited without doing their homework. A respected energy analyst told my office yesterday that if Marinus was up and running now then maybe, just maybe, it would be making some money—maybe for a short period of time, anyway. He also made it clear that it was never going to lower power bills for businesses and everyday Tasmanians. Communities were told that for Marinus to work, a wind farm proposed for Robbins Island in the north-west would have to go ahead. That was rubbish. Most of the locals had already told me they didn't want it. They were worried about farmland being ripped up for the cables and about a bridge that would ruin a squid fishery. The lead cheer squads for Marinus has always been Hydro Tasmania and the proponents of the wind farms. Both stood to make a lot of cash out of a power cable connected to the mainland. But slowly and surely the cracks have started to appear, and by goodness are those cracks getting larger by the day. Tasmanians started asking questions about the impact on their communities, and they questioned what they'd been told and if it really would mean that their power bills would go down. Absolutely not, they will not. Meanwhile, the technology on batteries was going like the clappers and batteries were getting cheaper and stronger. The Tasmanian Liberals pointed to a Californian report to spruik Marinus—I don't know how you can compare California with Tasmania, but let's run with it—except that the report said that solar, wind farms and battery storage were more economical than hydro. Victoria is very busy, and already miles ahead of Tasmania, ramping up their builds on new solar and wind farms. As for Tasmania, it hasn't even made it to the starting blocks. It's still putting its sandshoes on. Late last year, I started hearing whispers that Victoria didn't think they would actually need Marinus. The original projected cost of Marinus in 2020 was $3.8 billion. Nearly three years later, the conservative estimates are that it will cost $5.5 billion. I gather, by the time we get to the starter blocks it will be about $7 billion and by the time we get it built we'll be looking at $10 billion. Then there is the problem of getting our hands on the undersea cables, because we haven't ordered them. We didn't order them years ago. This is bloody hilarious. They're expensive and the whole world wants them, so, guess what? We're down the pecking order, right down here. My goodness. The Liberal state government and federal Labor government pressed on—as they would—with Minister Chris Bowen announcing on 19 October 2022 that the Albanese government would 'fast-track' Marinus, telling the media: After more than six years of the federal Coalition dragging their feet on Marinus Link, the Albanese Government is thrilled to take this critical step with Tasmania after just six months. Today's announcement shows what can happen when you have the states and the Commonwealth working together on energy policy focused on people not politics. This deal promised extra money to Tasmania to upgrade one of our power stations and to put in some new powerlines. Meanwhile, in Victoria, Premier Dan Andrews was headed into an election and no doubt got some other federal election goodies for Victoria in exchange for signing on. Join the dots out there, people! These announcements are all about winning elections. Just eight days before this announcement, the federal energy minister, Chris Bowen, confirmed that Snowy 2.0 was way behind schedule and possibly as much as $2 billion over budget. Oh dear! The latest predictions are that it will double from its original cost of $5.9 billion to around $10 billion. In 2017, Malcolm Turnbull announced Snowy 2.0 as—you guessed it!—a 'nation-building project'. Utopia, anyone? Maybe we need Snowy 2.0, but I am not sure we now need Marinus. We've been too slow. What I am sure about is that it won't lower the power bills of everyday Tasmanians. When the Tasmanian government announced Marinus in 2020, Tasmanian environmentalists, farmers and fishermen weren't happy. The environmentalists were worried about the 20 critically endangered birds that visit the wetland every year, and Tasmanian Aboriginal people were worried about the cultural heritage on the island. The farmers were worried about powerlines ripping through their prime agricultural land, and the fishermen were worried about the impact of the bridge on Robbins Passage. The state government ignored them, branding them all the 'anti-everything brigade'. Why did they ignore them? I reckon they thought there were no votes to be worried about there. They might have been wrong about that! In 2022, Dr Bruce Mountain, from the Victorian Energy Policy Centre, upgraded the report on Marinus saying it would be cheaper to build big battery storage projects on the mainland now. Dr Mountain said his analysis showed that the Marinus Link would struggle to compete with the growing number of big battery projects that are already being built in Victoria. In the years since his report, Dr Mountain says the costs of batteries have gone down while the cost of pumped hydro has gone up and 'the economics of Marinus don't stack up; it never did.' In early 2022, before the federal election and before the current government was elected, the fishermen and environmentalists were joined by big business criticising the project. Instead of building a cable to the mainland, these big businesses told the Tasmanian state government they should be building wind and solar farms for industry, not for the mainland. These companies, including Rio, told the state government that the then premier, Peter Gutwein, could create more jobs by channelling the state's renewable power growth plans into zero emissions manufacturing—and, by God, I reckon they're right. In May 2023, there went the hammer blow! Two of the state's Liberal MPs resigned, citing a lack of transparency around the AFL stadium and the Marinus Link. On the stadium, does the government seriously think the AFL stadium will cost only $750 million. Are you dreaming, you guys? Once again, we haven't even got to the starter box. It will cost at least a billion dollars, and I'm saying that today. God knows what it will be in six months time. But back to Marinus: one of the MPs that resigned, John Tucker, said he had 'serious concerns around the transparency around the Marinus deal'. The crux of the matter is that Tasmanians are being asked to foot one-third of the bill to help mainland status with their energy problems. So, last Friday, the Liberal government changed their tune. They knew I was on their tail, and they signalled their willingness to walk away from the Marinus Link because of the rising costs making it too costly to bear—anything to get out of the deal—citing a 'material and significant cost increase'. Premier Jeremy Rockliff said that, despite the merits of the Marinus and his commitment to what was a 'nation-building project': The right price does not mean any price, and from day one we have said that the cost-benefits of this project must stack up in favour of Tasmanians. The two Liberal MPs who quit the party said they welcomed this U-turn. But I'll tell you what, Mr Rockliff: you really need to have a good look at this, and I don't think Tasmanians are on your side. Live Animal Exports 88 20:53 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I rise tonight to speak on a topic that I've spoken on in this place a number of times, and that is the impact of the Labor Party's decision to ban the live export of sheep on my home state of Western Australia. One hundred per cent of live sheep come from my home state of Western Australia. They go to important trading partners, mainly in the Middle East, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Israel, Oman, Jordan. Those nations account for around 96 per cent of the sheep exported by sea. There are 4,281 sheep businesses in my home state of WA, and every single one of them will be impacted by the Labor Party's decision to ban the live sheep trade. The Northern Territory Chief Minister—Labor—opposes the ban. The Premier of Western Australia—Labor—opposes the ban. In fact, the entire WA Labor government, including the agriculture minister, opposes the ban. In their submission to the review panel set up by the federal Labor government—and I don't agree with everything they submitted; I think it's a significantly underestimated number—the state Labor government said it's going to cost the WA agriculture industry $123 million. That's not $123 million for the phase-out; it's $123 million every year, and that is a massively underestimated number, if you talk to anyone who's actively involved in the issue. The ACCC also made a submission to the review panel's inquiry. What did they say? They said that the loss of those markets will reduce competition within the market and drive down the price of sheep. They said Western Australia won't be able to meet the market of those key trading partners, because sheep meat exports will not be directly substitutable into Australia's live export markets. With fewer buyers in the market, this would increase the market power of those buyers, which increases the risk of businesses using unfair trading practices, in their dealings with sheep producers, and risks anticompetitive behaviour. That's what the ACCC said about the Labor Party's ban on live sheep exports. The phase-out may increase demand for sheep processing facilities in WA. If domestic markets were flooded with excess sheep, this would impose downward pressure on farmgate prices. We've heard from every peak agricultural industry body that this decision is a red line in the sand that should not be crossed. To quote from the industry peak body's submission: We do not believe it can be 'transitioned out of' in a way that benefits producers. It would be detrimental to rural communities and international markets … The industry's removal would penalise farming families and our international friends, to our country's detriment and at the cost of approximate 3000 jobs in Western Australia. This is a devastating impact. It will impact upon the wool industry, and we saw that in the submissions. It will impact on the cattle industry. In estimates, the trade minister didn't even understand that there were dual-purpose boats, leaving from Fremantle for the Middle East, particularly Israel, carrying both sheep and cattle. The trade minister didn't understand that, for those vital Middle Eastern markets, the sheep being on the boats underwrote the cattle being on the boats. This will have impacts right along the supply chain, and it will impact our small regional communities in Western Australia. Senate adjourned at 20:59