DOCUMENTS

2023-08-09 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Wednesday, 9 August 2023

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

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 09:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. BILLS 1 BILLS Copyright Legislation Amendment (Fair Pay for Radio Play) Bill 2023 1

Second Reading 1 09:02 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Australia is where song began. Scientific findings show songbirds originated in Australia tens of millions of years ago and then spread across the world over time. The wellspring of the planet's songbirds, this singing country, became home to songlines and the sounds of the didgeridoo, or as the Yolngu call it, the yidaki, and clap sticks of this continent's First Peoples. The oldest continuing cultures in the world have been playing music for tens of thousands of years. It is no surprise Australia has developed an authentic sound. It may be hard to put in words, but you know it when you hear it: Gang of Youths, Slim Dusty, AC/DC, Human Nature, Archie Roach, KLP, Silverchair, Peking Duk, the Living End, INXS, Powderfinger, the Presets, Baker Boy, Grinspoon, Yothu Yindi, Percy Grainger, Sherbet, Billy Thorpe, Glenn Shorrock, Guy Sebastian, Shannon Noll, Don Burrows, the Kid LAROI, Pete Dawson, Skyhooks, Cold Chisel, Peter Allen, Men at Work, the Seekers, Gurrumul, the Bee Gees, the Aston Shuffle, Paul Kelly, the Angels, Richard Clapton, Jimmy Little, Thelma Plum, Olivia Newton-John, Dune Rats, John Farnham, Little River Band, Split Enz, Renee Geyer, Smoky Dawson, Briggs, the Easybeats, Hunters & Collectors, Coda Conduct, Jimmy Barnes, Midnight Oil, Divinyls, Rose Tattoo, Dan Sultan, Helen Reddy, Daddy Cool, Icehouse, Lobby Loyde, Frank Ifield, Hoodoo Gurus, Marcia Hines, Jo Jo Zep and the Falcons, Ross Wilson, Brian Cadd, Radio Birdman, Nick Cave, Dragon, Max Merritt, Russell Morris, A.B. Original, the Triffids, Bluejuice, John Paul Young, Lee Kernaghan, Mental As Anything, Little Pattie, Big Scary, Boy & Bear, the Dingoes, Mallrat, Kev Carmody, John Williamson, Models, Johnny Young, the Loved Ones, the Church, Kylie Minogue, the Wiggles, Pez, Air Supply, Ruby Fields, Urthboy, Tina Arena, Daryl Braithwaite, Kasey Chambers, Jebediah, Hilltop Hoods, the Whitlams, Crowded House, Tame Impala, the Temper Trap, Gretta Ray, Hermitude, Drapht, Horrorshow, the John Butler Trio, Jet, Boilermakers, Sparkadia, Holy Holy, You Am I, Missy Higgins, Karnivool, Angus & Julia Stone, Birds of Tokyo, Josh Pyke, Hands Like Houses, Cut Copy, Wolfmother, the Avalanches, Regurgitator, Gotye, the Vines, Something for Kate, Middle Kids, Empire of the Sun, Eskimo Joe, Spiderbait, Cog, Washington, Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds, Xavier Rudd, Bernard Fanning, Cloud Control, the Preatures, the Cruel Sea, the Amity Affliction, Sarah Blasko, Sia, Flight Facilities, the Rubens, Pendulum, the Panics, Art vs. Science, Sleepy Jackson, the Grates, the Saints, the Rions, Pete Murray, Nina Las Vegas, the Waifs, Lisa Mitchell, the Go-Betweens, Dead Letter Circus, the Butterfly Effect, Pnau, Children Collide, Gypsy & The Cat, Frenzal Rhomb, Augie March, Paul Dempsey, Alex the Astronaut, Dom Dolla, Genesis Owusu, Teen Jesus and the Jean Teasers, Hayden James, Boo Seeka, King Stingray, Fun Machine, Vallis Alps, Safia, Rufus du Sol, Lime Cordiale, Courtney Barnett, Budjerah, Violent Soho, Camp Cope, Jack River, Citizen Kay, the Terrys, Skegss, Vancouver Sleep Clinic, San Cisco, JK-47, Panama, Tkay Maidza, Allday, Bag Raiders and the Middle East. We could go on. Across generations, Australian music has been the soundtrack of our favourite TV shows and movies, underpinned memories made at special events, kept us company on road trips and helped us remember friends and family who may no longer be with us. The sound of our music has helped shape the character of our nation. We should all feel very proud of the music industry that has grown up here and continues to evolve as our shared culture does. For these reasons, I was pleased to see the Australian government launch the National Cultural Policy earlier in the year. The policy places a strong focus on supporting Australian artists, including through the establishment of Music Australia, which will have a mandate to support and empower Australia's contemporary music industry to realise its local and global potential. There is one issue that has fallen by the wayside for too long, which is how artists and rights holders are remunerated for the use of their works on radio under the Copyright Act 1968. Firstly, it's important to remember that the music you hear on the radio comprises two forms of copyright: the performance of the underlying composition of the song (known as the musical work), and the performance of the sound recording itself—being a particular recorded version of that musical work. For the composition, licensing agreements are generally struck between the relevant copyright collecting society representing the publisher, songwriter and composer, and the broadcaster. The collecting society, APRA in this case, will then collect the agreed licence fee and distribute it to the songwriters, composers and publishers. For sound recordings, there is a statutory licence, which means that the sound recording rights holders are unable to prevent radio broadcasters from using their recordings. PPCA, the relevant collecting society for sound recordings, and the ABC and other bodies representing commercial and community radio broadcasters will generally negotiate a licensing agreement, and then collect the licence fee and distribute it to recording artists and sound recording rights holders. For any form of copyright, when the parties are unable to reach agreement on licence fees, the Copyright Tribunal is able to determine an appropriate rate, taking into account a range of factors including those raised by the parties, such as the regionality of a radio station, the economic climate, the cost of inputs and other market forces. However, under section 152(8) of the Copyright Act, for sound recordings only, the Copyright Tribunal is precluded from determining a rate that would equate to more than one per cent of a commercial radio broadcaster's gross annual earnings. For the ABC, for sound recordings, the Copyright Tribunal is unable to determine an annual rate that exceeds 0.5c per head of population in that year. These are caps, and their presence has framed negotiations since the Copyright Act was first enacted in 1968. They do not apply to any other forms of copyright material, including the musical works performed each time a sound recording is broadcast. This cap is unique in the Copyright Act. It doesn't exist for any other type of copyright; for all other types of copyright, the free market agrees the rate and can access the Copyright Tribunal if an agreement cannot be reached. It's also quite unique globally; there don't seem to be similar caps anywhere else in the world. Today, commercial radio, comprising 260 stations across the country, pays just 0.4 per cent of gross earnings to artists and rightsholders, which equates to around $4.4 million per year. The ABC pays around $125,000 for the broadcast of sound recordings across all of its radio stations. Compare that to what is paid for composition. According to a 2019 House of Representatives inquiry, the licence fees for the broadcast of lyrics and composition were at that time at 3.76 per cent of gross earnings. The composers are being paid a lot more for the songs than the recording artists. There have been at least five parliamentary inquiries over the last 30 years that have touched on the cap and its impact on the music industry. The most recent was under the last government in 2019, in a review of the Australian music industry conducted by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts. In the final report, the committee stated: The committee sees no public policy which is served by the cap and is concerned that it distorts the market in a way that disadvantages Australian artists. The review of intellectual property legislation under the Competition Principles Agreement in 2000, sometimes referred to as the Ergas Review, commented of the caps: … since the time of their introduction, the economic circumstances of the commercial radio industry have evolved, and the Committee does not believe capping remains warranted. No public policy purpose is served by this preference, which may distort competition … resource use, and income distribution. … … … To achieve competitive neutrality and remove unnecessary impediments to the functioning of markets on a commercial basis, the Committee recommends that s. 152(8) of the Copyright Act be amended to remove the broadcast fee price cap. In 2013, the Australian Law Reform Commission also considered the pricing caps in its broader review of statutory licensing arrangements for sound recordings. It recommended that the statutory licensing scheme be repealed in favour of a voluntary licensing scheme, such as the one that exists for composition and lyrics. However, they also commented that if the scheme was retained, 'there appears to be a strong case for repeal of the one per cent cap'. The findings of these reviews are clear. The mere presence of the cap is distorting the market to the disadvantage of artists, who we must remember are small businesses, often operating on a shoestring to brand and market and distribute their product. This bill makes a small change that will have a big impact on our local music industry, walking in tandem with the national cultural policy. It will allow artists and rightsholders to negotiate a fair market-based value for their work. And it will bring the treatment of sound recordings on radio in line with how sound recordings are treated elsewhere in the Copyright Act. This bill does not remove the protection of the Copyright Tribunal, which will still be able to make determinations on rates if parties are not able to agree, as they do now and as they do for other forms of copyright. Removing these caps also won't automatically change any royalties. No decision taken by this parliament will come at a cost to any radio station. Passing this bill simply allows the market to decide a fair rate, and always with the safeguard of the Copyright Tribunal. As mentioned earlier, for all music that is played across all of the ABC's radio stations, just $125,000 is paid each year to artists. The ABC pays its actors, its writers and its journalists a fair market wage. It should also pay its artists. There are over 5,300 registered Australian artists that the collecting society collects for, and I believe they are entitled to a fair go at the negotiating table when looking at the value of their works. I commend this bill to the Senate. 09:15 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I, too, rise to speak on the Copyright Legislation Amendment (Fair Pay for Radio Play) Bill 2023. The coalition does not support the bill at this time. Our fear is that the bill proposed by Senator David Pocock would have immediate and adverse unintended consequences for commercial radio stations, especially in remote and rural areas. The potential second-order impacts on our commercial radio landscape in general and remote and regional stations in particular mean that this is not a bill that we can support. What the bill actually does is overturn a rule that has been in place for 55 years. It is a very simple rule, and what it says is that if you are a radio station and you play songs covered by copyright then you must pay a fee, but the fee itself is capped. What the bill before the Senate does is remove those caps. Based on the available evidence, we are not confident in relation to what is proposed that the benefits of that change outweigh the risks that we have articulated. It's worth spending a few moments reflecting on what copyright is, because copyright is an unusual concept to the extent to which it directly influences a range of economic relationships. Copyright, as many will know, is a form of property. It's not tangible, so you cannot hold it in your hand. Rather, it is a bundle of economic rights that allow a person to benefit from material that they themselves have created. It is a form of statutory recognition of the value of a person's creative labour and their artistic skill. It protects the original form or way an idea is expressed. It doesn't protect the idea itself. It is not the musical chord or the word or concept that is protected; rather, it turns artistic expression into something of tangible economic value and it gives authors and performers non-economic rights—rights that we usually refer to as moral rights. In Australia, when we speak about moral rights we mean the right of integrity, the right of attribution and the right against false attribution. Again, it is the law stepping in to ensure the value of creative endeavours is respected by protecting the integrity and inherent value of artistic expression. Copyright law itself is hugely important because it is part of the bedrock on which our creative industries are built on in our great country. It recognises value and, when we talk about value, it recognises both the economic and moral value in the labour of our writers and our musicians and our creative workers. Importantly, it is fundamentally a creature of statute. Copyright exists in Australia in its current form because successive governments have recognised the interest that we all have in protecting creative labour. But, as is always the case, the interest itself does not sit in isolation. It exists in balance and in tension with other rights and interests. For example, the right to prevent unauthorised distribution of your creative expression—one of the fundamental tenets of copyright—is in tension with free speech. As a society we have collectively arrived at the position that it would be inappropriate to allow an artist's economic interests to stifle the exchange of ideas. To do so would be antithetical to our democracy. That is why our copyright law includes exceptions to copyright infringement for things like news reporting, review and satire. Of course, there are other areas where a balance must be struck between the protection of copyright and competing interests. One of those competing interests is in the interest that we all have in encouraging a vibrant media landscape. That is the interest that is affected by the bill that we have before us in the Senate. The balance between encouraging a healthy media landscape and the protection of artistic endeavour is at the heart of this bill. So let's look at the provisions that this bill would actually affect. If passed, this bill would repeal just four subsections in section 152 of the Copyright Act. On the surface, if you just look at the bill and what's being presented, these changes themselves appear to be straightforward. But they have essential work to do. Fundamentally, the four subsections, which would be repealed if this bill was passed by the Senate, set caps on the fees that radio broadcasters must pay for playing sound recordings. There is a cap that applies for commercial radio licensees which is set at one per cent of gross earnings for commercial radio stations. And there is a cap set for sound recordings played by the ABC which is set at 0.5 cents per head of population. Broadly speaking, as I stated in my opening remarks, those caps have been in place since the Copyright Act was passed, and that is now 55 years ago. The simple reason that the caps have been in place for such a long period of time is because they play an important balancing role between competing economic interests. The caps take into account the balance between the direct economic interests that artists have in profiting from radio play and the broader economic benefit that those artists derive from radio play. That, of course, is a very complex balance. The act could have said, when it was first drafted, that no fees are payable. Doing so would have reflected some implicit judgement that radio play is economically neutral. That is, the economic cost that comes with the nonpayment of copyright fees is offset by the broader economic benefits to the copyright holders. But instead, by imposing caps, the Copyright Act strikes the balance in a way which says the artist must have some right to benefit directly from radio play. One reason for that is that we as a society recognise that there is a second competing interest in play here: the interest in promoting Australian music. We advance the interest through Australian music quotas. The commercial radio code of practice, developed by the industry with the Australian Communications and Media Authority, sets Australian music quotas for commercial radio broadcasters. This is a matter that was inquired into by the House Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts, only just in March of 2019. We know from that report that many who are covered by the code do not see content quotas as a form of forced supply. Rather, they recognise that the analogue and digital spectrum of Australia is limited. For them, meeting Australian music quotas is an obligation that is inherently required to meet, to gain access to a finite public resource, and to use it to offer a commercial radio service. But crucially, the obligation to play Australian music is balanced by the cap on the fees payable. The caps go hand-in-hand with Australian music quotas. So in terms of the impact of the removal of the caps, which is what this bill proposes to do, our concern is that the removal of the caps would strike at the critical balance in the world of commercial radio. They would upend the delicate relationship between the obligation to play Australian music and the obligation to pay for it. At its heart, the purpose of removing the caps is to allow the fees to go up. In the current environment, with all of the competitive pressures that commercial radio stations face from digital platforms, a sudden increase in costs risks creating significant unintended consequences, and we are cautious about changing those relationships. Our concern is that, if the bill were to pass, those consequences would be immediate and adverse because what you risk is a sudden unanticipated increase in the operating costs associated with playing Australian music. In particular, our concern—and I know Senator Davey will elaborate on this in more detail—is in relation to what happens in remote and regional areas. Roughly 220 of the 260 commercial radio stations across Australia are in remote and regional areas. It is in the interests of all of us to set the conditions for those radio stations to continue their operations because they provide vital services for the community. They can be a hyperlocal platform that brings locals together in a way that is simply not possible on any other medium, and that is reflected in the local content and present rules that apply to regional commercial radio stations. We all know what happens in remote and regional areas when you impose a sudden cost on a service. It is very simple, unfortunately. There's a very immediate impact: it closes. We can see and we have seen that happen time and time again. Our theory on this side of the chamber is that the second-order impact of this bill would be to drive the closure of commercial radio stations in remote and regional areas. What this bill unfortunately does, despite what Senator Pocock is trying to do through this bill—and I understand what he is trying to do—is the bill would adversely affect every commercial radio station across Australia. The 85 per cent or so of Australian commercial radio stations that are in rural and regional areas will feel that pressure acutely. You risk losing the bits in between the music. The hyperlocal content that tells you about the school fete or the local shops is then put at risk, and, instead of a local radio station, our fear is that radio stations would increasingly end up with syndicated content coming out of our big cities. Quite frankly, that is just not acceptable. As I stated, the coalition is unable for those reasons to support this bill. The bill creates economic risks for commercial radio, especially, as I have said, in rural and regional areas. But we are acutely conscious of the risk of second-order impacts on communities, particularly for remote and regional communities that benefit from those stations. So, at this point in time, on all of the available evidence, it is not a risk that we are prepared to take. 09:28 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise today to speak in favour of this private senator's bill put forward by Senator David Pocock, the Copyright Legislation Amendment (Fair Play for Radio Play) Bill 2023. The Greens are wholeheartedly in support of dealing with this issue. In 1968, when the original deal was done to cap the amount of earnings and licence fees paid to performers for sound recordings, it was a sweetheart deal done for the commercial radio stations and the big media companies across the country. That's what happened in 1968, and 55 years later it is what is still occurring. I found it extremely interesting to hear the arguments put forward by the opposition just now. They know that this is a problem—it has been a problem for 55 years—but they are also under extreme pressure and lobbying from the commercial radio industry. I want to dispel one of the myths or one of the fears that has been put forward this morning, and that is that if this bill were to pass all of a sudden there would be an immediate hike in costs for commercial radio stations, and in particular, as we have just heard from Senator Cash, those in rural and regional areas. That is simply not true. This bill removes the cap and allows for both parties—the commercial radio sector and the recorded music sector—to negotiate. There's no imposition of a particular fee. There is no percentage by which current licence fees would be paid. There is no dollar amount that is enforced. It simply allows a fair and balanced playing field in order to ensure that there is fair negotiation. This is about creating a set of regulations that can oversee the negotiation for a fair market rate. That's what this is. Senator David Pocock spoke eloquently about the heart and soul of Australian music. If we think about our most treasured and loved musicians in this country, most Australians would expect and understand that they should get fair pay for their performances and fair pay for their recorded and played music. Unfortunately, the current rules, as they are, are just not fair. The radio caps are legislated limits on what radio pays for the use of sound recordings. Let me explain this clearly. The cap doesn't apply to songwriters; it is for the use of the sound recording. Take Cold Chisel: Jimmy Barnes, as a performer, has his royalties restricted by these caps, whereas Don Walker, as the songwriter, doesn't. That is not fair. We need to rebalance the playing field. A cap is set at one per cent of gross revenue for commercial radio. But, in fact, under those conditions and just in the last 2021-22 financial year, the entire radio market paid a measly $4.4 million for the use of all sound recordings. Think about all the musicians that radio stations play—all the wonderful songs that, as Australians, we're singing along to in our cars as we drive to work or do the school pick-up or drop-off, or the songs we're humming to while we're in the supermarket and the radio is playing from the speakers above our heads. All that was paid by the commercial radio sector to broadcast and play those songs and that music was $4.4 million. Music is the underpinning foundation keeping commercial radio alive in this country. Commercial radio that plays music has the biggest ad revenue, the biggest stars and the biggest audience numbers. If they didn't have music to play, no-one would listen. It's time they started paying for the right to play the music. They don't do it out of the goodness of their hearts. It's not a charity. They play music on their radio stations because it makes people listen. It's what audiences want to hear. When you think about the impact over the last few years, Australian artists broadly but particularly Australian musicians have copped it hard. We know that, when COVID hit, musicians and performers were the first to immediately lose their gigs and have their business models and their jobs shut down literally overnight. Festivals were cancelled, gigs were cancelled and pub shows were gone. And they are still struggling from that March 2020 deadline to get back up on their feet. Of course, the business models of the music industry have changed significantly over the last few years, notwithstanding COVID, with the trend towards streaming of music rather than buying individual albums or singles. More and more musicians are forced to have to get paid for their music through those performances and touring, and it has been extremely hard to do because of COVID. But this particular issue relating to the radio caps has been a problem for 55 years. It is not new, but it is time we fixed it. There has been review after review of this issue. There have been five reviews and all found that there was no reason for the cap to remain in place. I know the Albanese government have a new-found interest in the creative industries in this country. That is a good thing, because under the previous government it felt as though the Prime Minister and his frontbench couldn't even say the words 'art', 'music' or 'artists'. So the bar was pretty low. But what we have had in Tony Burke is an arts minister saying he wanted to reimagine what Creative Australia looks like and who has ushered in a new cultural policy. Part of that includes Music Australia, which the Greens called for. We are very proud that that has occurred. We took that as a policy to the last election and we are happy that it has happened. But it can't just be policies on paper. We actually need to make the legislative changes required to ensure that we look after our artists, that we give them their rights and that we fundamentally ensure that they have the best environment for them to do their jobs. We've heard some of the fearmongering from those in the commercial radio sector already that this is going to cost money and therefore cost jobs. What about artists' jobs? What about the jobs of musicians? What about the jobs of performers? Do their jobs count? Well, they should. That is why we need this legislative reform. We'll hopefully soon have the establishment of Music Australia. They are simply going to be a body to advise and to implement the policies that are set by this place, and so we will still have some heavy lifting to do. Australian artists and musicians have been left out in the cold for far too long. Not only are they not getting fair pay for when their song is played on the radio; they don't even get a minimum fee for a performance. What other job in this country can you rock up to not knowing whether you're going to get paid or not and there is no legal enforcement? Musicians and artists keep us full of spirit. They're essential for the heart and soul of our nation. They inject joy and light into our homes, into our workplaces and into our social occasions. They enable us to tell stories about ourselves that we're proud of and that help us feel and understand. Artists' jobs are real jobs and we need them, and it's time we ensured they got paid fairly. Removing this radio cap is just one small step in helping to balance the playing field and ensure a fair market rate can be negotiated, and a fundamental indication that this parliament, and, if the government were to adopt this change, the government, actually understands the importance of artists being paid for their work. Jimmy Barnes deserves to be paid because Cold Chisel is playing on the radio, and he deserves to be paid a fair rate for it—as does every single Australian artist in this country. I know the commercial radio sector, which of course is becoming more and more concentrated and more and more influential, is knocking on the doors of politicians in this building this week demanding that people don't vote for this bill. Don't be hoodwinked by the fearmongering and the resistance of change. For 55 years the commercial radio industry have had a good go, and it is time now they started paying a fair share. Australian musicians deserve better, audiences expect better, and it's time this parliament did something about it. I commend the bill to the Senate. 09:42 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales I, too, rise to speak on the Copyright Legislation Amendment (Fair Pay for Radio Play) Bill 2023. From the outset I have voiced my support for Australian artists and the Australian music industry, and all they do for our culture in this country. My concern, however, is that this bill is premature. In fact, Senator David Pocock himself pointed out that, while the cap is one per cent of gross annual earnings, the current agreement with the PPCA and commercial radio is 0.4 per cent—so they're not even paying to the full cap. I want to point out that the PPCA, the Phonographic Performance Company of Australia, who negotiates these arrangements with commercial radio, launched a Copyright Tribunal action in May this year. That action is still underway. Let the process take its course. Let's see what the Copyright Tribunal comes back with and let's see the outcomes of that before we try and rush through a bill that may have unintended consequences. I get it; I totally understand that our singers, our performers, the principal artists, deserve fair pay. I am someone who spends literally hours in the car listening to both commercial and ABC radio, and local radio. A big shout-out to 2BS Bathurst, 2MG Mudgee and 2QN Deniliquin—if you can't tell, I am an AM band person—and every local radio station across rural and regional New South Wales. If it wasn't for local radio I would be a very frustrated driver. I absolutely respect Senator Pocock and what he is trying to do, what his intentions are with this bill. I recognise the importance of valuing and supporting homegrown artists. Their creativity, their dedication deserve our appreciation. But I also support my local regional radio stations. And while this bill might seem like a very simple change, removing caps on fees for playing copyrighted songs on the radio, we must also remember that this cap was put in place in return for Australian content quotas. Senator Hanson-Young and I both support Australian content quotas. We'd like to see Australian content quotas on streaming platforms, so we need to ensure that when we have content quotas that are working, we don't inadvertently undermine the system by playing with other linked legislation. The caps and the content quota ensure we hear Australian music on our Australian radio stations. If we lose that content quota, we have the potential to only hear the Americans. As much as I love Taylor Swift, I certainly thoroughly enjoy hearing Fanny Lumsden on my radio. I don't want to lose that. This bill is not just about copyright. It is about the harmony between the different rights and interests. We've long understood an artist's right to profit must coexist with the public's right to exchange ideas. It is this balance that has allowed us to nurture a thriving media landscape, a space where diverse voices contribute to the beauty and the strength of our national identity. And I fear removing these caps will have a significant impact, particularly on regional radio stations—and I accept Senator Hanson-Young's concerns that commercial radio has been condensed. I certainly, as someone living in the regions, am always concerned when I turn on my local radio station just at the end of the local program and hear it switch straight over to something being streamed from Sydney or Melbourne, and it does happen. However, we also must acknowledge there are still rules and regulations about the commercial radio licenses throughout Australia. As Senator Cash said earlier, 260 licences throughout Australia and some 220 of those are in regional or remote areas. And there are still requirements for a minimum of three hours locally produced content. Those stations, those three hours of local content, they keep us informed. Turning the radio on and hearing how the Murray cod are biting along the Edward River, hearing how the snow's falling in Cooma—they make us realise how they play a very important role in our local fabric and in our local regional communities. When we have the CEO Sleepout in Deniliquin, 2QN and Edge FM bring their outdoor broadcast tables down to interview the people who are sleeping rough for the night to promote not only the cause, but also because they are part of our community. These radio stations are part of our community, but they are now operating in a vastly different and more competitive environment than when this cap was first put in place and when some of these reports that Senator Pocock mentions in his bill were done. One of those reports said that commercial radio was doing very nicely, thank you very much. Well, fast forward to today. In this digital age, competition is fierce. Commercial radio is competing against the likes of Spotify and others who don't pay a fee to the PPCA. That is my understanding. Commercial radio needs income via advertising, and they constantly have to prove themselves to the advertisers and improve their listening audience while still battling to get that audience, to get their ears on. And they're battling with car manufacturers—just as our free-to-air television is battling with television manufacturers—for prominence. We need to make sure that we keep our radio in our cars and that we keep our free-to-air television on the televisions that we buy. My biggest concern is that there are processes underway at the moment. The PPCA has its Copyright Tribunal action ongoing. We need to see the outcome of that. We need to be able to investigate and understand exactly what the impact of removing these caps would be on our Australian music quotas, on the requirement for regional radio to produce local content, on the requirement of regional radio to keep staff and not move licences from location to another. We need to ask those questions and have answers and be satisfied that we won't get perverse, unintended consequences from what is a well-intended position. We can't rush this through and risk the wellbeing of our communities who get a vital service. We saw last year, with the multiple floods, that it was regional radio that provided that lifeline of emergency announcements. If we undermine that and put that at risk then what do those communities do? While I thank Senator Pocock for bringing this bill to the chamber, I do think it is too early. I think it's premature. I want to see what happens through the Copyright Tribunal. I want to have further conversations with the PPCA, APRA, AMCOS and commercial radio. I'd also like to hear what the ABC thinks, because this will impact the ABC. It is odd that the ABC pays even less, but it is a taxpayer funded agency. I certainly would not want to see the last bastion of regional radio—that being the local ABC—being undermined or squeezed any tighter than it already is. We've heard from Senator Pocock and from Senator Hanson-Young that the caps are unfair and anticompetitive, and I do agree that it seems odd that songwriters and composers are paid at different rates. But the caps, which are not reached at the moment—payments are still well below the actual cap—were put in place in conjunction with an Australian content quota. I want to make sure I continue to hear Australian music on my Australian radio as I drive the five hours from Deniliquin to Canberra, which I do every sitting fortnight, or as I drive the eight hours from Deniliquin to Mudgee to go and see family and friends up there. As I said, I think it's premature. I think more questions need to be asked and I want to see how the Copyright Tribunal process plays out. I want to have further conversations, and I think that this bill is being presented too early. 09:55 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I rise today to speak about the value of artists and musicians, whose contribution to society is currently being undervalued and whose work is exploited. Senator Pocock's bill will remove legislated limits on what radio pays for the use of sound recordings like songs. I support artists and musicians getting paid properly for their work, and I support this bill going to an inquiry so that all the issues relating to artists' exploitation can be addressed. I support what this bill is seeking to do, though I will be advocating to make sure that it is done properly, without unintended consequences such as negative impacts on community radio, which is already running on a shoestring while commercial radio stations bring in huge profits at the expense of the wellbeing of artists. The value of art in society is incalculable. Music is disarming. It allows us to feel seen and heard. Music speaks truth to power. It helps us hear messages we otherwise would not listen to. As First Peoples, we have music woven into the very fabric of our existence. Music is knowledge, transmitting stories of creation, spirituality and connection to the land and to each other. Music acts as a bridge between the past and the present, a testament to past resilience—to current staunch resilience. For many mob, music is a way to learn and reconnect with language and culture, and my people are still telling our truth through stories. For many blackfellas, it is a lifeline that keeps us connected and able to survive the ongoing violence of the colony. I will now read out some lines from songs from First Peoples artists. This is No Fixed Address and their song, 'We Have Survived': We have survived The white man's world And the horror and the torment of it all We have survived The white man's world And you know You can't change that This is Barkaa's 'Blak Matriarchy': Can't colonise my blak mind I'm from the Dreamtime, I go back They committed genocide through my tracks They raped our mothers lessened my black They brought the violence when they attacked I ain't here to start trouble, I'm just here to state facts This is Uncle Archie Roach's 'Took the Children Away': Said to us, "Come, take our hand" Set us up on mission land Taught us to read, to write and pray Then they took the children away This is Briggs in 'Locked Up': They put our kids in the system Findings, reports and royal commissions Numbers, statistics when they're making decisions Assess the risks and build another prison This is Ziggy Ramo's 'Little Things': Is that your law? 'Cause that's invasion That's the destruction of five hundred nations The genocide of entire populations Which planted the seeds for the stolen generation And grew into my people's mass incarceration Now we pass trauma through many generations The lord can't discover what already existed For two hundred years, my people have resisted Yothu Yindi—treaty now!—Thelma Plum, Kutcha Edwards, Shane Howard, AB Original, Briggs, Denny, Warumpi Band, Coloured Stone, Uncle Archie Roach, Auntie Ruby Hunter, Kev Carmody, King Stingray, Ziggy Ramo, Baker Boy, Dan Sultan, Lajamanu Teenage Band, Emily Wurramara—these artists and many more paved the way for future First Peoples artists to imagine and create a radically different country, to stand up and speak out, to bring public attention and understanding, to shed a light on racism, land rights, incarceration, genocide and police brutality. They deserve to be properly paid for their work. For decades, the Western colonial system has undermined and undervalued artists who create and play music. While governments like to harp on about their support for the arts, we know that so much of this money goes to big industry and event companies, leaving the artists, who are the bedrock of the industry, struggling for scraps. Around 17 million Australians listen to commercial radio and audio each year. Audience numbers have grown by almost 14 per cent in the five years to 2023. Radio is brought to you in three main ways. Firstly, and most importantly, there is community radio. Community radio is such a core foundation of the world of radio, and it is where the best independent artists, activists and thinkers are usually found. On it are the likes of my uncle Robbie Thorpe, presenter of Melbourne community radio station 3CR's Fire First program, where some important truth-telling occurs every week to educate people about historical and ongoing black struggles for justice. Community radio operates under the same regulations as commercial radio but undergoes separate negotiations. Community radio does not have anywhere near the same revenue as big commercial stations. Secondly, it is through the ABC and SBS, which includes triple j, ABC Classic FM and local services. The ABC pays $0.005—half a cent—per person in Australia for all the songs you listen to. Multiply this by 26 million people and you see that the ABC pays only $130,000 per year for all of the songs it plays—no matter how many times it plays them per year on your behalf. Thirdly, you have Commercial Radio Australia, an industry organisation that represents the 260 plus commercial radio stations around the country. Who owns most of the industry? It's not surprising to learn that people like Kerry Stokes and Murdoch have their fair share of the pie in their continued monopoly over the information we read, the music we listen to and the voices that are amplified. Commercial radio is a highly profitable industry with annual revenues in excess of $1 billion. Advertising revenue in the last financial year for metropolitan commercial radio stations only was around $700 million per year. Where does this money go? Not to the artists. Last year commercial radio paid only $4.4 million approximately for the use of all recordings across its 260 plus stations, with only half of this going to artists, and that is shared between thousands. Standing in the way of money flowing to artists is a 55-year-old law from 1989 that currently protects commercial radio and the ABC from paying more. The effect of the cap is to impose a substantial penalty on recording artists and record labels by forcing them to provide a significant annual subsidy to the commercial radio sector. But you know who does get paid a handsome sum? Commercial radio's Kyle Sandilands, whose salary is around $5 million per year. Yet commercial radio, who have built their entire business model on music, say that they cannot afford to pay more money to artists. They threaten to scrap funding to regional radio stations instead of cutting the salary of a man who is as obsolete as the coal and gas projects that this government keeps approving. Stakeholders have told us that the decision of whether the cap get scrapped could end up being a captain's call. This means it could be in the hands of the Prime Minister, who went to the wedding of Kyle Sandilands earlier this year. But, luckily for the government and PM, this decision should be easy. Firstly, this bill aligns with the current Revive cultural policy, and the Labor government said it is committed to maintaining a strong copyright framework that works in concert with other legal and policy mechanisms. Secondly, no decision made by the parliament on this bill will directly cost radio a single dollar. It will simply remove a cap on payments and allow parties to negotiate a fairer industry rate. This is just one of the issues in what requires a whole-of-industry solution that covers all of the issues and properly pays all of the players. The music industry as a whole is fraught with issues, and the exploitation of artists is pervasive. Income from radio is even more important as other sources of revenue have dwindled to nothing. Streaming platforms like Spotify can end up costing artists more than they earn. The live music industry was left to crumble by government's lack of support through COVID and thereafter. Live music in cities has been demolished by urbanisation. Government policy has created conditions that destroy creativity, with a reliance on a gig economy and labour exploitation to fund functions that could be full-time positions. Australia is one of few countries that doesn't pay session musicians ongoing royalties, driving talented musicians overseas. We need new media monopoly laws, government advertising subsidies, investment in regional radio, startup funding for new communication technologies and proper funding of community radio. Research shows that the people in this country care about music, care about art, care about culture and are willing to pay for it. It's time to scrap the cap and support our artists. 10:08 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales This is a strange place we come to, but one of the great things I love here is the knowledge you get. There are many downsides, but then there are the things you're exposed to that you didn't know. Prior to the environment and coms committee inquiry, led by Senator Hanson-Young as the chair and Senator Grogan as the deputy chair, I didn't know a lot about the disbursement of funds for music, and it opened my eyes. As previously said, we on this side won't be voting for the Copyright Legislation Amendment (Fair Pay for Radio Play) Bill 2023, but what we can do from the crossbench and the opposition benches is raise legislation like this that puts a light on problems, and Senator David Pocock has done that very well with this bill. We need a bigger look at how we fund our artists and our recording artists. What came out of the committee, when I was there, is that there is a lot of money going around every aspect of this industry, but very little is getting to those people who make it. Senator Davey spoke about some of these things earlier. She mentioned she was a Taylor Swift fan, and, when I was going back through the Hansard of the committee, I noticed I dissed Taylor a little bit in that committee, so I apologise to all the Tay Tay fans out there. But here we are now. Let's look at some of the numbers. We have the ABC—that is, triple J and every aspect of ABC radio—paying $136,000 for their rights to play songs as much as they want, so $136,000 all across Australia for all the stations. We had, as Senator Thorpe said, commercial radio paying $4.4 million last year for every song going out there across Australia. We have that money, as I think ARIA put to our committee, Senator Hanson Young, and that was $39.6 million being distributed in total to artists by ARIA. That's under $40 million going to Australian artists, and half of that goes to the record companies. Australian artists end up with less than $20 million being distributed to them. Is that good enough? No, it is not. We heard from APRA AMCOS, on behalf of rights holders, who don't have this cap. They have a turnover of $670 million for rights holders, not the performers. And, believe it or not, APRA AMCOS retained 13 per cent of that money to run their commissions, so the people administering who gets the funding in Australia end up, on my calculations, with about $87 million in fees. That is around about four times what the artists get from ARIA. If you are working in the industry to work out who gets what for the right holders, your area gets four times as much as that. I know we're coming to the time when the debate will be interrupted, but it is not right. We have streaming platforms like Spotify and others, and all these laws come in before there was a digital media music industry out there, when tick-tock was a noise clocks made and twitter was a noise a bird made. These things have to be looked at, and although we are not supporting this bill, it has shone a light on a problem in Australia because we are not supporting Australian artists. We need to get that message out there, and we need to do this soon. If you have a look at even APRA AMCOS rights holders— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T The time for this debate has expired. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the senator will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. BUSINESS 10 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 10 10:12 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales At the request of Senator Chisholm, I 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 sittings. 10:12 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales The Greens oppose what is effectively an urgency motion to bring on this legislation contrary to the standing orders, which would otherwise require proper consideration of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2023. We ask this: why is it the only occasion on which this parliament is willing to consider something is urgent is when it comes from either Defence or the security industry, when it comes from either somebody with golden braid on their shoulders or it comes from ASIO? Those are the only things that this chamber seems persuaded are urgent. When have we ever seen urgent legislation or urgent policy change dealing with the climate crisis treated like this? Never, never. When have we ever seen urgent legislation dealing with the housing crisis and the rental crisis and this agreement between the so-called parties of government that needs to be brought on and dealt with now because we have a crisis, an urgency? Never. When have we ever seen the crisis in public education and our universities and funding for young people to get that essential start in life dealt with as an urgent motion? When have we seen those issues brought on with urgency? Never. The only occasion we see the club come together and say: 'This is urgent. It needs to be dealt with now. It is super important to the nation,' is when it's Defence or it's spooks. And, again, this is what is happening here. This is no more urgent than the climate crisis. This is no more urgent than the housing crisis. Those are the things that this parliament should be focusing on, but we can't get the club to listen. Millions and millions of Australians want those issues to be the feature of today. So, yes, we think this is an important bill, and let's deal with it appropriately. But it's an insult to say this is more important than the climate crisis or more important than the housing crisis, and that insult is being felt in millions of houses across this country and billions of households across the planet. We oppose this motion. 10:14 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria The opposition will be supporting this motion. Not to put too fine a point on it, following our debate earlier this week about the intelligence and security committee, but this is an example of how the parties of government—a term I know the crossbenchers and the Greens hate—can come together in the national interest to promptly and appropriately resolve issues relating to national security. I hope this is a lesson for the government that your other friends up there on the crossbench, the Greens, cannot be relied upon, whether members of the PJCIS or not, to get things like this done. 10:15 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I will briefly indicate that the government does consider that this bill requires attention now. The current threat environment does call for increased collaboration and engagement across and outside of the government, and the ability to use and disclose this information is critical to the ability of agencies to protect key national security interests. I understand that it is not common in this place for the Greens party to acknowledge that there are national security interests that require our attention. In fact, nearly every bill that's brought before this place is described as overreach. That is not the approach of the government. We will consistently bring forward legislation which is in the national interest and requires debate in this chamber, and we do so today. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T The question is that the exemption of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2023 from the cut-off be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [10:20]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Pratt)

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

Question agreed to.

BILLS 11 BILLS Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2023 11

Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2023

First Reading 11 10:23 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 11 10:23 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— The Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2023 (the Bill) will clarify the intended operation of certain provisions in the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979. The Bill amends sections 65 and 137 of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act to ensure foreign intelligence information can be communicated, used and recorded to protect Australia's national security. Foreign intelligence information plays a critical role in enabling intelligence agencies to identify threats to Australia's national security. The communication and use of this information is critical to identifying and mitigating those threats. Importantly, the Bill does not seek to alter or expand existing information sharing practices of foreign intelligence information. The Bill clarifies the intended operation of certain provisions in the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act to ensure that foreign intelligence information can continue to be communicated to address threats to Australia's national security but only where appropriate. The Bill clarifies the ability of agencies to communicate foreign intelligence information about threats to Australia in accordance with the proper performance of their functions. These amendments ensure that the Attorney-General can continue to approve the communication and use of foreign intelligence information in a manner that is appropriate to address threats to Australia's national security. The Bill contains a number of critical safeguards to ensure that foreign intelligence information is used and communicated in a controlled and targeted manner. This includes ensuring that when a person receives foreign intelligence information under subsection 65(1) or 137(1) of the TIA Act, it may only be shared in the proper performance of functions, duties or powers, and subject to any purposes specified, or conditions imposed, by the Attorney-General. Use of these provisions will remain subject to independent oversight by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. I commend the bill to the Senate. 10:23 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria The Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2023 will clarify the intended operation of certain provisions of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979. Specifically, the bill amends sections 65 and 137 of the T(IA) Act to ensure that foreign intelligence information obtained under certain warrants under the T(IA) Act can be communicated, used and recorded to protect Australia's national security. These changes will facilitate a more timely sharing of foreign intelligence which is critical to our ensuring our intelligence and law enforcement agencies are able to identify threats to Australia's national security as they arise and take the necessary steps to mitigate them. This includes malicious cyberactivity targeting Australian interests, terrorist communications and foreign intelligence services threatening Australian interests. Schedule 1 of the bill will clarify the ability of agencies to communicate foreign intelligence information about threats to Australia in accordance with the proper performance of their functions. The bill does not seek to alter or expand the information that may be intercepted under foreign intelligence warrants. The amendments would augment the existing requirement for the Attorney-General to approve the persons who can receive foreign intelligence information—noting this may not be known with sufficient certainty when the request is made—with an approach where the Attorney-General can limit communication and use of the information by specifying the purposes or imposing conditions for which the information can be shared. The bill also includes a number of safeguards to ensure that foreign intelligence information is used and communicated in a controlled and targeted way. This includes ensuring that, where a person receives foreign intelligence information under the relevant parts of the T(IA) Act, it may only be communicated in line with the relevant agency's proper performance of functions, duties or powers and subject to any purposes specified or conditions imposed by the Attorney-General. Use of these provisions will remain subject to independent oversight by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. The coalition thanks the government for the briefing that they provided on this bill, which illustrated the need for this amendment and the urgency that comes with it. We will always support sensible changes which ensure legislation is fit for purpose to enable the operations of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and we'll be supporting the passage of the bill. 10:26 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2023. This bill's purpose is to amend sections 65 and 137 of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act to provide that information obtained under any of sections 11A, 11B or 11C—which are about warrants for foreign intelligence information—can be communicated, used and recorded in accordance with ASIO's wishes. Schedule 1 of the bill provides a capacity for agencies to communicate so-called foreign intelligence information—information obtained under those warrants—that contains threats to Australia or otherwise. It enables agencies, most specifically ASIO, to communicate that information however they see fit in accordance with the performance of their functions. What it does is remove the existing constraints on the use of foreign intelligence information. This legislation has been brought in an unseemly hurry to the parliament—and I put on the record that we appreciated the urgent briefing that we got from the government, seeking to establish the urgent need for this legislation. We were not persuaded by that briefing as to the desperate urgency of the bill. The bill, of course, seeks to make changes to telecommunication laws, especially around ASIO's practice of sharing foreign intelligence information. I note at the outset that the rush to put this legislation through raises a very real question about what has been the practice inside ASIO up to this point. Has it been compliant with the existing provisions of the law? In short, has Australia's premier security agency been complying with Australia's law? Under the current law, ASIO can only share foreign intelligence information with persons who are named in the warrants issued by the Attorney-General. When you read the act and read the relevant provisions, that much is abundantly clear. That's what the law says—that, having obtained the information under a warrant, ASIO and other security agencies can only share that information with persons named by the Attorney-General. The question is: has that law has been complied with to date? The bill seeks to change that law by, instead of having a defined list of persons with whom that information can be shared—and 'persons' means both natural and non-natural persons—creating what is described as a 'purpose test' for sharing information, instead of a person test. It also seeks to, in the course of making those changes, permit the Attorney-General to impose conditions. What that means is that the Attorney-General—instead of specifying who intercept material such as phone taps and the like can be provided to—has the capacity to provide a limited purpose for which the information can be shared. I will pause here to note that whilst we are talking about foreign intelligence information involving at least one party who is not an Australian citizen, almost inevitably this warrant material involves conversations with Australian citizens and Australian residents; that is the nature of this intercepted material. So it is wrong to suggest that we can just park Australia's privacy and rights based framework to one side and say this will only impact foreigners. That is not the case. Nor should we discard privacy and rights based analysis for third parties. But to suggest that this only applies to non-Australian citizens is to misunderstand how this law works. The information gathered will inevitably include many, many private conversations and private exchanges amongst and involving Australian citizens. The explanatory memorandum says that, instead of information being shareable with named persons approved by the Attorney-General, 'The amendments will allow the Attorney-General to limit the communication and use of such information by specifying purposes or imposing conditions.' At first blush that may seem reasonable enough. It is not identified clearly in explanatory memorandum, nor is it explained in any detail on the second reading speech, but, on a close reading of the bill, it is quite clear that the Attorney-General does not have to put in any limiting purposes and is not required to put in any conditions for the sharing of the information. The bill, in fact, refers to the Attorney-General including a purpose, if any, which means that almost certainly the law will provide going forward that the Attorney-General can agree to a warrant, not put a purpose in, not put conditions in, and that literally allows the information to be shared with anyone, for any purpose that ASIO sees fit. Is this parliament comfortable in passing such a law, in giving such information-sharing power to ASIO? Having obtained this information inevitably involving private, otherwise privileged, communications amongst Australian citizens, ASIO, once having got the information, can literally share it with anyone for any purpose that ASIO sees fit. We should move aside the wash about it being a purpose based reform; that is all spin. That is all to pretend that there are constraints and privacy constraints; they are pretend constraints. In reality, this bill lets ASIO share it with anyone for any purpose, and that could be with US, UK, other foreign intelligence agencies, literally with anyone. The only constraint is what ASIO wants to do with it. There is also a fundamental flaw with the conditions clause, since the conditions imposed by the Attorney General, if they are imposed—and there is no obligation for the Attorney-General to put conditions on—only restrict ASIO. So the Attorney-General may have turned his or her mind to important privacy and public interest concerns about the nature of the information that is the subject of the warrant and may have put quite detailed conditions down, limiting what ASIO can do with it, limiting the circumstances in which ASIO can exercise the warrant, potentially limiting the classes or types of people whom ASIO can share it with, and maybe for good policy reasons. But once ASIO shares it with any third party, anyone at all, none of those conditions apply. None of them apply to that third party. That third party can share it with another third party and on and on and on, and the information is then at large. Are we comfortable with that, too, without any proper scrutiny of this legislation? It hasn't gone to committee and it hasn't benefited from consideration by the legal community or anybody with any of the privacy stakeholders. Are we really comfortable with rushing this legislation through without any consideration? There are two notional constraints that are meant to satisfy this parliament about the privacy and other constraints in this legislation, but when you look at both of them they both fall away. The Attorney-General doesn't have to limit it by purpose. Even if the Attorney-General gets very exercised and they put in conditions, those conditions don't run with the information. Once it's gone to any third party, those conditions effectively just fall away. The rationale for supporting the bill is that ASIO says it needs the ability to rapidly share time sensitive information about credible risks from foreign targets in Australia to protect from risks such as cyberattacks. If that information is available and it's needed to be shared on an urgent basis, the law should permit it—and the law does. It would require putting that information in front of the Attorney and expanding the list of persons; that's what it would require under the current law. It is hardly an unreasonable burden and hardly an inappropriate protection for Australia's privacy and the right to privacy of millions of Australians. On balance we don't believe the bill should be supported without significant amendment, but we think it is fixable. We're not here simply to say, 'no, never', but we've looked at the bill and we think it's fixable. We are proposing to move two amendments to address the accountability gaps in the scheme and to implement some reasonable checks and balances. The first of the amendments will require the Attorney-General to put in specific purposes for the use of any information obtained by the warrant—so, rather than it being a feel-good notation in the explanatory memorandum and an element of the government's press release, it will actually require it to be in the law. We cannot see a rational basis to not put that limitation in. This goes through that process with the Attorney anyhow; it's just saying the Attorney must do their job and turn their mind to the purposes and specify the purposes. The second amendment we'll be moving is in recognition of just how rushed this is, of the drafting concerns we've identified in less than 24 hours and of the fact that this legislation is only being moved now to patch up something that was rushed through the parliament two decades ago. It is to recognise and look at that history, and say, 'Actually, rushing the previous legislation through created a mess which we are apparently cleaning up today.' In recognition of that we have an amendment proposing a three-month sunset clause in the bill to effectively require the government, potentially through PJCIS, to do a rapid review of the bill, to consider if it does provide the right balance, and, if necessary, to come to the parliament with a fully considered regime—not something that was dreamt up on Monday, drafted on Tuesday, whacked on the photocopier on Wednesday and passed by midday. I'll speak to both those amendments in committee. 10:39 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I thank my parliamentary colleagues for their contributions to the debate on the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2023. The government is committed to ensuring that the legal framework in relation to the use, recording and communication of foreign intelligence information is fit for purpose and underpinned by robust safeguards and oversight mechanisms. The bill clarifies the ability of agencies to communicate foreign intelligence information about threats to Australia in accordance with the proper performance of their functions and ensures that foreign intelligence information can continue to be communicated and used in a manner that is appropriate to address threats to Australia's national security. The bill includes a number of critical safeguards to ensure that foreign intelligence information is used and communicated in a controlled and targeted manner. Strong and effective safeguards are an essential part of advancing and protecting Australia's national security interests. Together these measures ensure that Australia's legal framework continues to support the work of national security agencies while also ensuring that these powers are subject to appropriate safeguards. I anticipate there probably will be some questions about the legislation, including from Senator Shoebridge, but, as I say, the bill does include a number of critical safeguards to ensure that foreign intelligence information is used and communicated in a controlled and targeted manner. The amendments will maintain strong ministerial oversight in addition to the broader safeguards, and the use of these provisions will remain subject to independent oversight by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. Again, I thank my colleagues for their contributions. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 The question is that the bill be now read a second time.

The Senate divided. [10:45]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Chandler)

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

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

In Committee 15 10:48 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales by leave—I move Greens amendments (1), (2), (3), (4), (6), (7), (8), (9) on sheet 2060 together: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 9), omit "(if any)". (2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 21), after subsection 65(1B), insert: (1C) To avoid doubt, foreign intelligence information must not be communicated under subsection (1A) if the Attorney-General does not approve, in writing, any purposes for the purposes of paragraph (1A)(b). (3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 29), omit "(if any)". (4) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 6), after item 4, insert: 4A After subsection 65(2) Insert: (2A) To avoid doubt, foreign intelligence information must not be communicated or used under paragraph (2)(a) if the Attorney-General does not approve, in writing, any purposes for the purposes of that paragraph. (6) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (line 15), omit "(if any)". (7) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (after line 27), after subsection 137(1B), insert: (1C) To avoid doubt, foreign intelligence information must not be communicated under subsection (1A) if the Attorney-General does not approve, in writing, any purposes for the purposes of paragraph (1A)(a). (8) Schedule 1, item 9, page 5 (line 5), omit "(if any)". (9) Schedule 1, item 9, page 5 (after line 14), after subsection 137(3), insert: (3A) To avoid doubt, foreign intelligence information must not be communicated or used under paragraph (3)(a) if the Attorney-General does not approve, in writing, any purposes for the purposes of that paragraph. These amendments, taken together, would amend the two substantive elements of this bill which currently provide a capacity for the Attorney-General to limit the sharing of the foreign intelligence information obtained under a warrant whereby the bill as drafted permits the Attorney-General to specify a purpose for which the information can be shared. But the drafting, very intentionally, in providing purpose, if any, identified by the Attorney-General, does not require the Attorney-General to so specify the purpose for which the information can be shared. Given the government's position that there are critical safeguards in the bill, it's our view that that should be more than verbiage, it should be included in the actual drafting of the bill. These amendments taken together require the Attorney-General to put a purpose in and, to avoid doubt, provide that foreign intelligence information cannot be communicated if the Attorney-General does not approve in writing any purposes. That's the ultimate safeguard. So while our amendment doesn't expressly provide for the Attorney-General to put a purpose in, what it does say is if there's no limiting purpose identified by the Attorney-General then the information cannot be shared. That, of course, is a powerful incentive for the Attorney to turn their mind to what an appropriate limitation should be, what the appropriate purposes should be. That is consistent with the rhetoric in support of the bill, and we move it for that purpose. Minister, you say the government's position is that there are critical safeguards in the legislation. Is it true that the Attorney-General doesn't need to put a purpose in? Is that true? Would that be the effect of these amendments? 10:51 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Shoebridge. The short answer to your question is, yes, there is a discretion for the Attorney-General, but just to do so rather than a requirement. But let me fill this out a little further to explain. The legislation provides appropriate limitations on the purposes for which foreign intelligence information may be communicated. Foreign intelligence information may only be communicated under subsections 65(2) and 137(2) of the bill in the 'proper performance or exercise of a person's functions, duties or powers'. ASIO is subject to a stringent legal and policy framework, including legislation and ministerial, parliamentary and independent oversight, including oversight by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. The Director-General of Security's ability to communicate foreign intelligence information under subsections 65(1A) and 137(1A) of the bill is limited by section 20 of the ASIO Act, which requires that the director-general shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the work of ASIO is limited to what is necessary for the purposes of the discharge of its functions. As I said, in addition to that there is a range of oversight already built into the system, including by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. In those circumstances it's appropriate that the Attorney-General have a discretion as to whether to approve any purposes or impose conditions in relation to the communication of foreign intelligence information. For example, the Attorney-General may specify restrictions on the communication and use of the information, including the persons who can communicate and use the information and the manner in which the information may be communicated and used. 10:53 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Thank you for that helpful explanation, Minister. So with the passage of this bill, it goes from a situation where the Attorney was required to turn their mind to the limited list of persons whom the information could be shared with to it simply being a matter for ASIO to share the information as it sees fit, limited by the generic provisions of section 20 of the ASIO Act and also the requirement that it be for the proper performance of ASIO's powers. So it goes from a constrained list of persons identified by the Attorney to whomsoever ASIO thinks they should in the 'proper performance of ASIO's powers'. Is that the effect of these amendments? 10:54 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As I've said, the Attorney-General would have discretion whether to approve purposes or specify conditions upon the agency's ability to share foreign intelligence information. Senator Shoebridge 169119 And in the absence of the Attorney-General— Senator WATT 245759 The question was whether, in the absence of the Attorney-General exercising that discretion—as you say, and as I've said a couple of times, there is a limitation on ASIO's ability to communicate that information, and that limitation is the general provision that the information can be communicated for proper purposes. In your contribution to the debate, Senator Shoebridge, I feel you were characterising it as that ASIO could communicate information willy-nilly without restraint. That's not correct. The act itself requires that communication to occur for 'proper purposes', or words to that effect. In addition, as I've already said, there are a range of oversight mechanisms that exist to ensure that that power is not misused. 10:56 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Minister, what are the proper purposes of ASIO? 10:56 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As I understand, and I'm sure you're probably aware, that is a defined term within the act, so I refer you to the act. 10:56 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Minister, noting this legislation has been brought with such haste, are we to deduce from that that this legislation is seeking to entrench existing ASIO practice that, on reflection, is in breach of the law? Is that what we're seeking to do? Is this seeking to entrench existing ASIO practice, and, if so, has that existing practice been in breach of the law? 10:57 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The purpose of this bill is to clarify the original intention of the act, in terms of the use of these powers. The existing provisions have been in use since the year 2000, but the amendments clarify the ability of agencies to communicate foreign intelligence information about threats to Australia in the proper performance of their functions. The amendments ensure that foreign intelligence information can continue to be communicated and used in a manner that is appropriate to address threats to Australia's national security. As I say, this is really about clarifying those powers for ASIO to exercise. 10:57 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Minister, when you say 'clarify the intentions' and allow information to 'continue to be communicated', as I understand those answers it appears ASIO has not felt constrained to only sharing the information with persons who have been named by the Attorney in accordance with the existing law. Is that how I'm to understand your answers: to allow ASIO to have the information continue to be communicated? 10:58 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Shoebridge, how you choose to characterise this is a matter for you. What I'm saying is that this bill is about clarifying ASIO's powers to put them beyond doubt, and the amendments are intended to update and clarify the operation of key provisions in the T(IA) Act, which relate to the communication, use and recording of foreign intelligence information. It was identified that legislative amendments were necessary to: … ensure that the Attorney-General can continue to approve the communication and use of foreign intelligence information in a manner that is appropriate to address threats to Australia's national security. As I say, this is really about clarifying the operation of the bill in line with its original intent. 10:59 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I'll be clearer then. Has ASIO been sharing foreign intelligence information obtained under sections 11A, 11B and/or 11C with persons other than those specified by the Attorney-General under subsections 65(2) and 137(3)? 10:59 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I have no knowledge of that, Senator Shoebridge. I refer you to my previous answer as to the reasons why these amendments are being put forward. 11:00 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Has the government referred concerns about ASIO's use of information obtained under 11A, 11B and 11C and concerns about potentially unlawful behaviour by ASIO to the inspector-general? 11:00 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Because of the independence of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, it is a matter for them what they choose to investigate, rather than being directed or referred matters by the government. However, I understand that the IGIS was consulted in the preparation of this legislation. 11:00 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Has the inspector-general undertaken an investigation of ASIO's use of information obtained under 11A, 11 B or 11C given what appears to be, from your answers today, decades of unlawful practice by ASIO? 11:01 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'm not aware of the inspector-general having undertaken such an investigation, but it is obviously a matter for the inspector-general to confirm what investigations it may or may not have underway. There are opportunities to pursue those matters at Senate estimates. The TEMPORARY CHAIR e68 The question is that Australian Greens amendments (1) to (4) and (6) to (9) on sheet 2060, as moved by Senator Shoebridge, be agreed to.

The committee divided. [11:06]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Sterle)

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

Question negatived.

11:08 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales by leave—I move Greens amendments (5) and (10) to (13) on sheet 2060 together: (5) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 11), after item 6, insert: 6A At the end of section 65 Add: Note: This section was amended by Schedule 1 to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Act 2023. However, item 11 of Schedule 1 to that Act provides that this section has effect, on and after the sunsetting day (as defined in that item), as if those amendments had not been made. (10) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 17), after item 10, insert: 10A At the end of section 137 Add: Note: This section was amended by Schedule 1 to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Act 2023. However, item 11 of Schedule 1 to that Act provides that this section has effect, on and after the sunsetting day (as defined in that item), as if those amendments had not been made. (11) Schedule 1, item 11, page 5 (line 19), before "The", insert "(1)". (12) Schedule 1, item 11, page 5 (line 21), after "Schedule", insert "and before the start of the sunsetting day". (13) Schedule 1, item 11, page 5 (after line 23), at the end of the item, add: (2) Sections 65 and 137 of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 have effect, on and after the sunsetting day, as if the amendments made by this Schedule had not been made. (3) To avoid doubt, subitem (2) does not affect the validity of anything that is done or not done: (a) on or after the commencement of this Schedule and before the start of the sunsetting day; and (b) in reliance on section 65 or 137 of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 as in force immediately after the commencement of this Schedule. (4) In this item: sunsetting day means the day after the end of the period of 3 months beginning on the day this Schedule commences. Together, these amendments seek to put in place a sunset provision for the bill that provides that the amendments cease to have effect on or after a date which is three months from the day on which the amendments commenced. The purpose is to give government three months to undertake a proper review, an independent review, of the drafting and the impact of the amendments, to do the due diligence that wasn't done in the preparation of this bill and in the parliament's rapid consideration of this legislation. There's been no committee process and no submissions sought. The purpose of the amendment is to allow the parliament, if it chooses, to do the appropriate due diligence that hasn't been done on this bill through a committee process. That's why the Greens moved the amendments and that's the intent of them. They also provide that the setting of the sun doesn't affect the validity of any actions taken whilst the legislation was in force. I ask the minister, when was this issue raised with government and what consultation was done prior to bringing the bill to parliament? 11:10 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'm advised that the issue was identified quite recently. In recent weeks it was identified that legislative amendments were required to ensure that the Attorney-General can continue to approve the communication and use of such information, in a manner that is appropriate, to address threats to Australia's national security. More broadly, in terms of the amendment, the government will be opposing the amendment. It is not necessary to subject these provisions to a sunset clause. The amendments are required to clarify the intended purpose of the existing provisions of the act. The sharing of foreign intelligence information is essential to enabling the government to understand, mitigate and combat risks to Australia's national security. 11:11 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales You say 'quite recently' and 'in recent weeks'. Do you have a date for when it was identified? To make things a little smoother, are you also in a position to identify who was consulted? 11:12 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I don't have any further information as to precisely when the issue was identified. As I said, it appears from the information I have that it was in recent weeks. In terms of consultation, the government consulted the opposition. I understand they consulted the Greens and possibly other members of the crossbench—I'm not sure—on the reforms of the bill prior to its introduction. All impacted departments and agencies were consulted as well as the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. 11:12 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Should I understand the term 'consulted' to mean provided with a copy of the bill and being told that it was going to be introduced into parliament within a matter of hours? That was the consultation with the Greens. We were given a copy of the bill and told it was going to be brought into parliament in a couple of hours. Is that the Labor Party's definition of consultation? 11:13 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As I understand it, the process was, as you described, for consultation with political parties represented in the parliament. Obviously, the consultation that occurred within government in terms of the agencies and Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security was a little bit more detailed than that. 11:13 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales When you say 'a little bit more detailed', were they given it earlier in the day or were they shown the drafting and asked to comment on the drafting and the impact of the drafting, or were they just given it with a cup of coffee in the morning? 11:13 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland My understanding is that they were involved and they were an integral part in the development of the bill itself. 11:14 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Were they shown the drafting? 11:14 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Not only were they shown the drafting; they were consulted in the development of the drafting. 11:14 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria I briefly rise to put on the record the coalition's position on the previous amendment and this one. We will not be supporting the amendment. We are grateful to the government for the briefing they provided, which very clearly illustrated the need for this bill and the urgency with which it must be passed. We will always act in the national interest in a bipartisan way when it comes to national security. It does not assist, when dealing with these complex matters, to put in amendments such as this which seek to frustrate and delay dealing with the substantive matters and which require the parliament to return to the legislation in three months time, as would be the case with this sunset provision. This again demonstrates the way in which the Greens—who have been briefed on the importance of this bill, who understand the importance of this bill—are willing to play political games with national security to virtue signal to their supporters in the community and get in the way of dealing with what is a very real national security challenge which has been brought to our attention and must be dealt with properly. 11:15 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales When the original provisions were brought before parliament—the ones that are now having to be tidied up after decades of mess—were they also rushed through in a process like this? 11:15 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland My understanding is that the act itself goes back to the early 2000s, if not the 1970s, when—depending on which year in the 1970s we're talking about—I may or may not have been born. Obviously there have been further developments. Senator Shoebridge 169119 In 2000. I know it's complex. Senator WATT 245759 There's no need to be a smart alec, Senator Shoebridge. I obviously wasn't around, but I think it would be fair to say that, when primary legislation is first introduced to parliament, ordinarily there is a longer process than there is with a very slim set of minor amendments, which is what we're talking about here. 11:16 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Minister, do you acknowledge the fact, or have you been briefed at all on the fact, that, when these amendments were put in in 2000, by the coalition, in a rush, without due process, almost exactly this dance was done? It appears to have stuffed the law up or misled ASIO, and they've been operating unlawfully for two decades, after it was rushed through by the coalition without due process. Do you acknowledge that? 11:16 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'll let you characterise things however you choose, Senator Shoebridge. Question negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendments; report adopted. Third Reading 19 11:18 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Trade Support Loans Amendment Bill 2023, Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Amendment Bill 2023 20

Trade Support Loans Amendment Bill 2023

Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Amendment Bill 2023

Second Reading 20 11:18 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I am speaking in continuance on this legislation, the Trade Support Loans Amendment Bill 2023 and the Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Amendment Bill 2023. I want those who are listening to this debate to have no doubt that professions of economic and social importance will be reflected in these measures. This is because the skills priority list will be constantly updated by Minister O'Connor, based on industry-leading information about the skills most needed in Australia currently and emerging needs in our labour markets. Previous Liberal-National governments left this country with a skills shortage. We know that they didn't do anything about ensuring workforces, particularly in the care economy. But the Albanese Labor government is taking action to address critical shortages in the care economy, including in aged care, child care and disability. This is a major step to ensuring that we have the workforce that we're going to need in the care sector going forward. These amendments, which I have spoken about previously, will make things so much easier by enabling apprentices and trainees to access financial support to continue on their path of sustaining their training and will ensure that they are able to find good, well-paying jobs while at the same time reinforcing Australia's economy against foreign dangers by addressing systemic skills shortages in critical domestic workforce sectors. Our bold reforms to the existing trade support loan program only represent a chapter in our comprehensive and multilayered agenda to uplift Australian apprentices on their inspiring journeys through life. In that vein, these amendments fully integrate into the Albanese Labor government's wider Australian apprenticeship incentive system, which came into effect on 1 July, further supporting apprentices and trainees in their central goal to finalise their qualifications by renewing a blanket 20 per cent discount from their loan upon completion. By making it easier for apprentices to access the government's support during their training, these ambitious amendments to the trade support loan program add a fundamental pillar to the Albanese Labor government's transformative endeavours to upskill our Australian workforce. Following a decade of economic neglect, industrial decay and damaging incompetence from the previous coalition government, the Albanese government is firmly back on the side of recognising the importance of the vocational education and training sector to the Australian economy and jobs. These amendments are just another stage in delivering on our commitment to the VET sector, along with a shared consensus between government, employees and unions on their need to achieve a transformation in our employment going forward to ensure that we have a highly skilled Australian workforce. With those stakeholders all working together to build a resilient domestic economy, we're also collaborating with every level of government in a very robust way to support emerging sectors through Jobs and Skills Australia in tandem with our amendments to the trade support loan program. As I said, after a decade of shameful negligence from those opposite, the federal government now has a commitment to work at a local level to expand transformational opportunities for apprentices and trainees in female dominated care industries. This will mean so much for local communities, including my local community in Tasmania. Our cities rely on vital assistance from essential services, including from childcare centres and from disability carers in places like St Giles, which is well-regarded in Tasmania. We know our communities also rely on assistance from their aged-care providers. What we know from the aged-care sector is that in Tasmania alone over the coming five years we are going to need an increase in the aged-care workforce of some 5,000-plus people. That is without taking into account the requirements in disability support and early childhood education. It couldn't be any clearer that we need to make sure that we fund TAFE to establish courses in emerging industries so that the jobs of the future will benefit those individuals. It is also really important to recognise what those jobs will add to our economy. In addition to these wide-ranging benefits, this will ensure that we have highly skilled, highly trained apprentices. We will be supporting trainees and we will be supporting those sectors that predominantly employ women, to make sure that they have the opportunity to access loans to help them continue with their training. Hopefully many of those that are doing their traineeships or apprenticeships may consider going on to tertiary education or higher education. This is foundation for our amendments. We know, too, that in other parts of the country it's going to be very important to ensure our First Nations people have access to this support through their apprenticeships and their traineeships. We know the challenges in regional and rural places throughout this country of attracting people to live out there. We know our population is ageing. We need to attract the right people to aged care and disability, and do anything we can that's going to assist those doing an apprenticeship and those in a traineeship to upskill, to make sure we have the workforces that we need going forward. As I said, we're an ageing population. We are doing more with the NDIS to deliver those services and to not just deliver aged care in residential homes but, just as importantly, provide that workforce to care for people in their own homes and to keep people in their own home as long as possible. Whether it's aged care, whether it's people living with disability, this government has listened to the concerns that have been raised by the business community and particular sectors. We know this is good for our economy and good for upskilling Australians, and it is a stark contrast to those opposite when they were in government, who did nothing about wages, didn't support a 15 per cent pay rise for aged-care workers and have done nothing over the last decade to ensure we have a workforce going forward in aged care and disability or to recognise and respect those who are working in early education. 11:26 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I'd like to thank all senators for their contributions to this debate on these bills. The Trade Support Loans Amendment Bill 2023 is part of the Albanese government's work to ensure Australians from all backgrounds are supported to achieve their full potential. The changes in this bill facilitate the expansion of the trade support loan program, providing cost-of-living relief to Australian apprentices and trainees. Trade support loans are interest free government loans available to support apprentices in occupations of high skill needs with everyday living expenses. Currently the Trade Support Loans Act 2014 restricts access to these loans to apprentices in trade occupations on the trade support loans priority list. The existing list of occupations has not been updated for many years. It is not responsive and no longer aligns with current or future skill needs. The amendments in this bill will replace the existing priority list with a new Australian apprenticeships priority list. The new priority list will be responsive to Australia's skills needs and will include key in-demand occupations that can be pursued through an apprenticeship or a traineeship. Occupations with current, emerging or future demand will be determined with regard to advice from Jobs and Skills Australia, ensuring a rigorous evidence base. These changes mean we will be able to support Australians training in priority non-trade occupations, such as aged care, child care and disability care, with an income contingent loan to help them meet the cost of living while they train. By extending eligibility the bill will assist many women, as women predominately take up non-trade apprenticeships and traineeships and currently lack the support for these loans. To reflect the expanded eligibility this bill will rename trade support loans 'Australian apprenticeship support loans'. The bill will also make the program fairer by enabling flexibility to provide immediate support to apprentices who miss payments due to issues outside their controls such as administrative error. In response to the second reading amendment moved by Senator Faruqi and the Australian Greens: trade support loans are a small element of the program of student and training loans offered by government, all of which are repaid on the same income contingent basis. It would not be appropriate to treat trade support loans differently to other loans. As a result, this bill is not the appropriate forum to make broad changes to the approach to student debt. Any changes to the current system of indexation should be considered in their whole and in the context of the Universities Accord, the National Skills Agreement and a wider reform agenda so that the cost brought in a policy context and long-term effects and consequences can be taken into consideration for such a change. With the expanded Australian apprenticeship support loan program, the government is boosting access to the support available to apprentices and trainees to complete their qualifications. It is also better targeting that support towards occupations of greater skill needs. Once again, I thank senators for their engagement and commend these bills to the chamber. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Faruqi on behalf of the Australian Greens be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [11:33]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Chandler)

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

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

In Committee 22 11:36 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales by leave—In relation to the Trade Support Loans Amendment Bill 2023, I move Greens amendments (1) and (2) on the sheet 1976 together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table), omit the table, substitute: (2) Page 26 (after line 6), at the end of the bill, add: Schedule 2 — Abolishing indexation and raising minimum repayment income and repayment amount Part 1 — Abolishing indexation Australian Apprenticeship Support Loans Act 2014 1 Section 5 (definition of AASL debt indexation factor ) Repeal the definition. 2 Section 5 (definition of index number ) Omit "33", substitute "99A". 3 Section 30 (paragraph (a) of the paragraph beginning "In stage 1") Repeal the paragraph. 4 Subsection 31(1) Omit all the words before the method statement, substitute: (1) A person's former accumulated AASL debt, in relation to the person's accumulated AASL debt for a financial year, is the amount worked out using the following method statement. 5 Sections 32, 33 and 34 Repeal the sections. 6 Subsection 99(5) (note) Repeal the note, substitute: Note: See section 99A for the definition of index number. 7 After section 99 Insert: 99A Index numbers (1) The index number for a quarter is the All Groups Consumer Price Index number, being the weighted average of the 8 capital cities, published by the Australian Statistician in respect of that quarter. (2) Subject to subsection (3), if, at any time before or after the commencement of this Act: (a) the Australian Statistician has published or publishes an index number in respect of a quarter; and (b) that index number is in substitution for an index number previously published by the Australian Statistician in respect of that quarter; disregard the publication of the later index number for the purposes of this section. (3) If, at any time before or after the commencement of this Act, the Australian Statistician has changed or changes the index reference period for the All Groups Consumer Price Index, then, in applying this section after the change took place or takes place, have regard only to index numbers published in terms of the new index reference period. 8 Application of amendments The amendments of the Australian Apprenticeship Support Loans Act 2014 made by this Part apply in relation to the financial year starting on the first 1 July occurring on or after the commencement of this Part and each later financial year. Part 2 — Raising minimum repayment income and repayment amount Australian Apprenticeship Support Loans Act 2014 9 Section 3 (paragraph beginning "When the person's") Repeal the paragraph, substitute: When the person's income reaches the minimum repayment income and the person has finished repaying any debt under the Higher Education SupportAct 2003 and certain other income-contingent loan schemes, the person must start repaying Australian apprenticeship support loan debt. 10 Section 5 Insert: median wage has the meaning given by section 47AC. 11 Section 5 (definition of minimum repayment income ) Repeal the definition, substitute: minimum repayment income has the meaning given by section 47AB. 12 Section 5 (definition of repayment income ) Repeal the definition, substitute: repayment income has the meaning given by section 47AA. 13 Section 39 (paragraph beginning "Australian apprenticeship") Repeal the paragraph, substitute: Australian apprenticeship support loan that is paid to a person must be repaid. Once the person's income exceeds the minimum repayment income and the person has finished repaying any debt under the Higher Education SupportAct 2003 and certain other income-contingent loan schemes, the person must start repaying debt in relation to Australian apprenticeship support loan. 14 Subsection 46(1) (definition of applicable percentage of repayment income ) Omit "section 154-20 of the Higher Education Support Act 2003", substitute "section 47D". 15 After section 47 Insert: 47AA Repayment income (1) A person's repayment income for an income year is an amount equal to the sum of: (a) the person's taxable income for the income year, disregarding the person's assessable FHSS released amount (within the meaning of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997) for the income year; and (b) the person's total net investment loss (within the meaning of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997) for the income year; and (c) if the person: (i) is an employee (within the meaning of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986); and (ii) has a reportable fringe benefits total (within the meaning of that Act) for the income year; the reportable fringe benefits total for the income year; and (d) the person's exempt foreign income for the income year; and (e) the person's reportable superannuation contributions (within the meaning of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997) for the income year. (2) The person's exempt foreign income is the total amount (if any) by which the person's income that is exempt from tax under section 23AF or 23AG of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 exceeds the total amount of losses and outgoings that the person incurs in deriving that exempt income. (3) For the purposes of subsection (2), disregard any capital losses and outgoings. 47AB Minimum repayment income The minimum repayment income for an income year is the median wage. Note: See section 47AC for the definition of median wage. 47AC Meaning of median wage (1) The median wage for an income year is 52 times the amount set out for the most recent month of August before the start of the income year under the headings "Weekly earnings—Total" in a document by the Australian Statistician entitled "Employee earnings". (2) If at any time (whether before or after the commencement of this section), the Australian Statistician publishes the amount referred to in subsection (1): (a) under differently described headings (the new headings); or (b) in a document entitled otherwise than as described above in subsection (1) (the new document); then the median wageis to be calculated in accordance with subsection (1) as if the references to: (c) "Weekly earnings—Total"; or (d) "Employee earnings"; were references to the new headings and/or the new document, as the case requires. (3) If: (a) the Australian Statistician published the amount (the later amount) referred to in subsection (1) for a month of August; and (b) the later amount is published in substitution for such an amount for that month that was previously published by the Australian Statistician or that was applicable because of subsection (7); the publication of the later amount is to be disregarded for the purposes of this Act. Determination of amount by Minister (4) If the Australian Statistician has not published the amount referred to in subsection (1) for a month of August before the end of the first 31 March after that month of August, the Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine an amount for that month of August. (5) In determining an amount for a month of August under subsection (4), the Minister must make a genuine attempt to determine the amount accurately, taking into account all relevant evidence available to the Minister. (6) If the Minister determines an amount for a month of August under subsection (4), the Minister must, as soon as practicable, cause to be published, on the Department's website, a statement of reasons explaining the basis on which the Minister determined the amount. (7) If the Minister determines an amount for a month of August under subsection (4), the amount referred to in subsection (1) for that month is taken to be the amount determined in the instrument under subsection (4) for that month. Note: The median wage for the first income year to start after that month of August will be 52 times the amount that is taken to be the amount referred to in subsection (1) for the month. 16 After Subdivision AA of Division 4 of Part 3.2 Insert: Subdivision AB — Amounts payable to the Commonwealth 47D Amounts payable to the Commonwealth The amount that a person is liable to pay under section 46, in respect of an income year, is an amount equal to so much of the person's repayable AASL debt for the income year as does not exceed the percentage of the person's repayment income that is applicable under the following table: 47E Publishing indexed amounts (1) The Minister must cause to be published in the Gazette, before the start of an income year: (a) the minimum repayment income; and (b) the amounts referred to in the second column of items 1 to 15 in the table in section 47D; for that income year. 17 Application of amendments (1) Subject to subitem (2), the amendments of the Australian Apprenticeship Support Loans Act 2014 made by this Part apply in relation to the 2024-25 income year and later income years. (2) The Minister must cause to be published the information required by section 47E of the Australian Apprenticeship Support Loans Act 2014, as inserted by this Part, before the start of the 2024-25 income year. These amendments do two things. Firstly, they abolish indexation on trade support loans to prevent these loans becoming a debt trap. With student and training debts expected to rise by 15 per cent in just two years of the Labor government, this amendment is necessary to prevent the debt crisis from becoming even worse. I have to say, my heart really breaks for the many who will suffer the long-term effects of soaring student debt. People are already being locked out of the housing market, denied personal loans and are rethinking dreams of further study because they are being crushed by student debt, and things will only get worse because Labor is not acting on this. I did hear the minister say something along the lines of 'it would not be appropriate to remove indexation on these loans as they are part of an overall bigger system of loans'. Well, Minister, I say to you: you are in government and the best thing to do would be to scrap indexation on all loans, because the system that you talk about is utterly and thoroughly broken. Better still, just make TAFE and university free and wipe student debt. But in the meantime, at least let's start here, when we have an opportunity today to relieve some of that pressure. The second amendment raises the minimum repayment income for those loans to the median wage, which is currently $65,000 annually so that people only have to start repaying their loans once they are earning a decent income. This is an important measure to ensure that people on those lower incomes are not spending money on student debt, money that they so desperately need for bills, for rent, for food, for medicine. It is a cost-of-living relief measure. 11:39 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales The Liberals and Nationals will not supporting these amendments. The coalition supports the bills and the expansion of trade support loans to the new Australian Apprenticeship Support Loans scheme as outlined in the bills. The intention of these bills—to expand access to cost-of-living supports to Australians as they undertake training and to help them complete their courses—is admirable, but we recognise that this support must be targeted and temporary. We believe that, once workers are in a position to start paying back their loans, they should do so. We cannot support the abolition of indexation on these loans, because that provides a perverse incentive for people not to repay them as quickly and efficiently as possible. Australians receive this support because, as a community, we have made the choice to help support the aspirations of those looking to take on a new skill. This is not a cost-free exercise, and policies that provide support must be sustainable. I also note that the quantum of the loans under this scheme will be much, much lower than that experienced by many university students. It is not adequate to draw a direct link to the HELP system. Further, given record low unemployment and the high demand for skilled workers, graduates who qualify for these loans will overwhelmingly find employment rapidly, and only once they've got the employment will they be required to pay the loans back. We're very comfortable with the existing settings in this bill, and we don't believe that the new approach to delaying the repayment of these supports, as suggested by the Greens, is appropriate. We know that support provided by the Australian Apprenticeship Support Loans will make a difference to the lives of students, but, equally, we know that once they have a skill they'll be on the right path to great job opportunities and a prosperous future. We support the existing settings in the bills and do not support these amendments. 11:41 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The government will also not be supporting the amendments proposed by Senator Faruqi. I thank Senator Faruqi and Senator Davey for their contributions on this. As it did for the second reading amendment, the government notes that trade support loans are a small subset of the student and training loans offered by government, all of which are repaid on the same income-contingent basis. It would be inappropriate to treat trade support loans differently to other loans, and, as a result, the Trade Support Loans Amendment Bill is not the appropriate forum to make substantial changes to that approach to student debt. Any changes to the current system of indexation of student debt should be considered on the whole and particularly in the context of the Australian Universities Accord, the National School Reform Agreement and the wider reform agenda that the government has so that the cost, the broader policy context and the long-term effects and consequences can be taken into consideration for such a substantial change. Recipients repay their income-contingents loans through the tax system and do not need to begin making repayments until their income exceeds the minimum repayment income. These repayments do not change on the basis of the size of the debt—only on the basis of the income received. The intention of this system is to protect students from burdensome repayment obligations by basing repayments on students' capacities to repay rather than on the total value of their debts. This leads to significantly slower repayment rates than would occur at commercial rates, and it ensures that students are protected from the financial pressures of fixed-term repayments and the risk of default. Further, on successful completion of their qualification, recipients will receive a 20 per cent discount on their total loan. This provides an incentive for recipients to complete their qualification as well as reduce their total loan amount, enabling more people to study as a result. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 264449 The question is that the Australian Greens amendments on sheet 1976, moved by Senator Faruqi, be agreed to.

The committee divided. [11:48]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Chandler)

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

Question negatived.
Bills agreed to.
Bills reported without amendments; report adopted.

Third Reading 27 11:51 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That these bills be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bills read a third time. Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Dental Patients and Other Measures) Bill 2023 27

Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Dental Patients and Other Measures) Bill 2023

Second Reading 27 11:52 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia The Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Dental Patients and Other Measures) Bill 2023 seeks to amend the Health Insurance Act 1973 with three administrative changes, which are all supported by the coalition. From the outset, can I put on the record our thanks to the cleft palate community for their engagement on this extraordinarily important piece of legislation for them and the people they look after, and can I reiterate my commitment and the commitment of the coalition to working closely with them to ensure better outcomes for young Australians impacted by cleft palate and craniofacial conditions. Importantly, this bill will improve access to the Medicare Benefits Schedule for eligible persons requiring treatment for cleft and craniofacial conditions by removing the age restrictions, which currently are at 22 years of age. Schedule 2 also enables Services Australia to use computerised systems to action decisions made by a specified body to place doctors on or remove doctors from the Register of Approved Placements. Schedule 3 includes some technical changes to the bonded medical program, including rectifying inconsistencies between the act and the rule about the length of a bonded participant's return of service obligation. This legislation has arisen following the findings of the Medicare Benefits Schedule Review Taskforce report on the cleft palate dental services MBS item in 2020. The report suggested that the current age limit of 22 years for eligible persons requiring treatment for cleft and craniofacial conditions be lifted. Age limits for access to the scheme were initially established on the basis that patients with cleft and craniofacial conditions would generally have completed most specialist dental work associated with their condition once facial growth was complete—on average 22 years of age. However, there continue to be a small number of patients who are denied treatment on the basis of the age limit in circumstances where that treatment would be clinically beneficial to the patient's condition and their general health. This bill will also serve an important purpose of enabling patients who have had their surgeries deferred beyond the age of 22 due to the COVID-19 pandemic to access Medicare benefits for the treatment that they still require. Cleft lip or palate conditions affect one in every 800 babies born in Australia. The bill will not significantly alter average patient numbers, but it will nevertheless serve the important purpose of supporting improvements to patients' treatment plans. This will ensure that support is available for all Australians affected by these conditions and make it fairer and more equitable for young people needing cleft palate and craniofacial procedures to access those procedures, regardless of their age. The coalition absolutely supports the intention of this bill to improve access to affordable and life-changing procedures for those Australians impacted by these conditions, and we absolutely support increased access to critical health care through Medicare. However, we are concerned by the lack of action this government has taken to date to address the challenges currently facing Australians in their access to medical support and treatments more generally. Despite all their rhetoric on Medicare, Labor has slashed Medicare-subsidised health supports in half, cutting 70 telehealth items from Medicare and overseeing plummeting bulk-billing rates since coming to government. At a time when Australians are struggling with skyrocketing energy bills, mortgage repayments and grocery bills, we are seeing the cost of going to the doctor putting significant pressure on households as well. The government must start taking real and urgent action to ensure that all Australians have affordable access to health care, particularly during this cost-of-living crisis, and to ensure that all Australians have equitable access to essential health care, no matter what their postcode. Because we know rural, regional and remote Australians face unique and disproportionate challenges in accessing health care, particularly during this serious workforce crisis, the coalition remains absolutely committed to ensuring the sustainability of Medicare and to ensuring that all Australians have access to Australia's world-class health system. In government we increased Medicare funding every year. In fact, total annual funding for Medicare increased under the coalition from $19 billion to $36 billion a year, an increase of over $1 billion annually. In addition, the introduction of universal telehealth under the coalition was the most significant reform to Medicare since its creation. This saw more than 100 million telehealth services delivered under our government, ensuring greater and more flexible access to healthcare support for over 17 million Australians, including, importantly, patients in rural, regional and remote Australia. We know how important it is to address the tyranny of distance faced by rural patients and to ensure all patients have access to the supports they need when they need them, where they need them. That's why this bill is so important. All patients requiring life-changing treatment should have affordable and equitable access to that treatment, where that is possible. That is absolutely undeniable, and it is essential to the lives of patients. I wish to acknowledge the cleft palate community and their engagement with this legislation. We thank them for their ongoing engagement and for sharing their personal stories, and we appreciate the important advocacy that they provide on this very important health matter. The coalition understand their concerns and the issues raised around the inadequacy of current support offered through speech pathology sessions and we will work with them and the government to address this. We remain committed to solving their plight. We also appreciate the government's engagement on this issue and their commitment to working with us towards meaningful change and to finalising a program that fully addresses the wishes of the cleft palate community. The coalition looks forward to continuing to work collaboratively in the best interests of all Australians living with cleft palate conditions. Once again, we support this bill, in recognition of the important access to life-changing procedures that this legislation will provide to young Australians impacted by cleft palate and craniofacial conditions. 11:58 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I'm speaking today in place of Senator Steele-John, the Greens health spokesperson, who is unable to be with us in the Senate today. Every year in Australia around 400 babies are born with a cleft. So the Australian Greens welcome this bill, the Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Dental Patients and Other Measures) Bill 2023, today. It will enable those with a cleft lip or palate to have access to the surgery they require at any age. Under current legislation, Medicare eligibility for treatment under the Cleft Lip and Cleft Palate Scheme for prescribed dental patients requires a person to meet complex and problematic access restrictions, with some people being denied treatment on the basis of age alone rather than on the basis of clinical need. This bill will allow a small cohort of patients who are currently denied Medicare reimbursement for treatment based on age alone to access Medicare benefits for the treatment they need, so the Greens join with the community in support of this bill. However, when this bill came before the parliament, Senator Steele-John was disappointed and frustrated to hear that the key community stakeholder in this space, CleftPALS, had not been consulted on this bill despite it amending a scheme which entirely affects them and their children. When Senator Steele-John first met with CleftPALS, the primary need was clear. For over a decade, these parents of children with a cleft lip and palate have been asking for speech pathology services to be covered under the Medicare cleft lip and palate scheme. These children are currently forced to go without vital speech pathology services because of a lack of government funding. Minister Butler would have had an opportunity to make sure this call was heard if his office had consulted with the community prior to the introduction of this bill. Speech pathology services should have been included in this bill. To illustrate why this is so important, I want to share the story of Josh, whose father, Tim Devlin, is one of the parents in CleftPALS and has been driving this message of a need for speech pathology, alongside parents all over Australia. Tim joins us here in the Senate today. For two years, Tim and his wife have been fighting to get NDIS funding for speech pathology sessions for Josh. During that time, Tim estimates that his son's private speech pathology costs have added up to around $6,400. A specialist can cost over $190 per hour. Tim says there's an obvious need for speech pathology sessions to be subsidised for children with cleft lip and palate, which is not adequately met by either Medicare or the NDIS. Josh is now in preschool and has had two years of intense speech therapy, but his speech is still not understood by kids in the playground and he requires further speech pathology services. The amendment that I'll be moving later, during the committee stage, at the request of Senator Steele-John, gives the government the opportunity to rectify their lack of consultation and to amend the cleft lip and palate scheme to include speech pathology services. The advocacy by parents like Tim on behalf of their children has been so important, but it should not have been necessary. It's a government responsibility to ensure that the public health system leaves nobody behind. It has taken far too long to get this right. The time to rectify this and to amend this scheme is now. I call on the government and the opposition to support this amendment and to ensure that all cleft-affected children and adults can receive the speech pathology services they need. I hope the Senate will also support the Greens' second reading amendment, which summarises the need for speech pathology services and acknowledges and thanks CleftPALS. I think it's worth reading out some of the second reading amendment, which states that we note: 'the continued work of CleftPALS and Speech Pathology Australia in advocating for the services which will improve patient outcomes for those with cleft lip and palate; the Medicare Benefits Scheme's cleft lip and palate scheme does not currently extend to speech pathology services; that many children with cleft lip and palate would greatly benefit from speech pathology services which are not currently accessible under the cleft lip and palate scheme and are expensive for parents and cleft-affected adults; CleftPALS, the peak community body for people with cleft lip and palate, was not consulted in the writing of this bill; that children with clefts, requiring intensive speech therapy, can often attend weekly therapy sessions for blocks of six to 10 weeks, multiple times per year; that due to the surgery schedule that children with cleft lip and palate can experience, which can be 10 to 20 surgeries over 25 years, 20 speech pathology services in a patient's lifetime is often inadequate; and, in response to pressure from the community, the Medical Services Advisory Executive Committee is now reviewing relevant evidence on 18 August 2023 and will subsequently make recommendations'. It further states that we agree: 'to thank CleftPALS organisations across Australia and Speech Pathology Australia for their advocacy and support for the cleft-affected community; and funding for speech pathology services under the MBS cleft lip and palate scheme must be included in the next federal budget'. At the request of Senator Steele-John, I move: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes: (i) the continued work of CleftPals and Speech Pathology Australia in advocating for the services which will improve patient outcomes for those with cleft lip and palate, (ii) the Medicare Benefits Scheme's Cleft Lip and Palate Scheme does not currently extend to speech pathology services, (iii) that many children with cleft lip and palate would greatly benefit from speech pathology services which are not currently accessible under the Cleft Lip and Palate Scheme and are expensive for parents and cleft-affected adults, (iv) CleftPals, the peak community body for people with cleft lip and palate, was not consulted in the writing of this bill, (v) that children with clefts, requiring intensive speech therapy, can often attend weekly therapy sessions for blocks of 6 to 10 weeks, multiple times per year, (vi) that due to the surgery schedule that children with cleft lip and palate can experience, which can be 10 to 20 surgeries over 25 years, 20 speech pathology services in a patient's lifetime is often inadequate, and (vii) in response to pressure from the community, the Medical Services Advisory Executive Committee is now reviewing relevant evidence on 18 August 2023 and will subsequently make recommendations; and (b) agrees: (i) to thank CleftPals organisations across Australia and Speech Pathology Australia for their advocacy and support for the cleft-affected community, and (ii) that funding for speech pathology services under the Medicare Benefits Scheme's Cleft Lip and Palate Scheme must be included in the next federal budget". I look forward to the support, I hope, of the government and the opposition. 12:05 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I thank the senators who've made a contribution on this bill. The Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Dental Patients and Other Measures) Bill 2023 amends the Health Insurance Act 1973 to improve health care for all Australians. The amendments will remove age restrictions for accessing cleft and craniofacial services on the Medicare Benefits Schedule; enable Services Australia to automate management of the register of approved placements; and rectify inconsistencies between the act and the Health Insurance (Bonded Medical Program) Rule 2020 to make amendments enhance administration of the bonded medical program. Patients with eligible cleft and craniofacial conditions will benefit from the removal of age restrictions, allowing time for their conditions to be appropriately planned and treated. Under the current legislative arrangements, Medicare eligibility for treatment under the Cleft Lip and Cleft Palate Scheme requires a patient to meet complex and problematic access restrictions, with some patients being denied Medicare reimbursement for treatment based on age alone. Age limits for some patients were previously amended under the health insurance amendment bill 2022; however, there continues to be a small number of patients who are denied treatment based on age. These changes will provide equity of access for treatment to those patients who suffer from certain cleft and craniofacial conditions, relying upon a clinical requirement rather than age. In addition, the bill provides the facility for Services Australia to develop a system to place a doctor on or remove a doctor from the register of approved placements under section 3GA of the act. Specified bodies such as the Department of Health and Aged Care and general practice colleges are responsible for determining if a doctor is eligible to be placed on the register of approved placements. Services Australia places doctors on the register of approved placements based on notifications from specified bodies. The specified bodies will notify Services Australia on the decision, and Services Australia will manually place doctors on and remove doctors from the register of approved placements accordingly. The act does not currently allow this to occur via computer system. This change will reduce the time frames for doctors to start providing Medicare rebated services to their patients at a time critical with workforce shortages in primary care. The bill also corrects inconsistencies between references to three years and one year in part VD of the act and the definitions of how a participant accrues a week of their return of services obligation under the Health Insurance (Bonded Medical Program) Rule 2020. With this bill, the Australian government will make it fair and equitable for young people needing cleft palate and craniofacial procedures, ensuring access to essential health care. I note the amendment of Senator Steele-John, moved by Senator Rice, and I thank all parties for their engagement on this bill. The government appreciates the advocacy of CleftPALS and Speech Pathology Australia in raising the separate issue of access to speech therapy for those with cleft conditions. The government notes that there are separate MBS services available for some speech pathology services under the chronic disease management plans which may be applicable to cleft patients. The government also notes the advice of CleftPALS that they do not consider these sufficient for cleft patients. The government will consider the proposals from CleftPALS in conjunction with existing work being undertaken in relation to potential expansion of access to MBS services for those with severe speech and language disorders under the MBS for those with eligible disabilities following a recommendation from the MBS Review Taskforce. The Medical Services Advisory Committee is an independent and expert committee comprising experienced clinicians and health economists. MSAC provides advice to government on whether a new medical service should be publicly funded and, if so, circumstance on and assessment of its comparative safety, clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and total costs using the best available evidence. Any changes to the MBS funding for allied health services, including speech pathology for cleft patients, needs to be informed by a clinical evidence base and advice from the MSAC. For these reasons the government will not be supporting the amendments put forward by the Australian Greens. Options and pathways for further government consideration of the CleftPALS proposal will be determined by the MSAC executive. This could include consideration of further changes to the disability items in the MBS and may involve consideration of changes to the cleft scheme, as proposed by CleftPALS. The department will continue to consult with CleftPALS, Speech Pathology Australia and other stakeholders in progressing this work. The Australian government is committed to strengthening Medicare and putting the health of Australians first. I thank senators for their contribution to the debate on this bill. Question agreed to. Original question, as amended, agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee 31 12:12 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria by leave—At the request of Senator Steele-John, I move Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1922 together: That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), after "1", insert ", 1A". (2) Page 3 (after line 18), after Schedule 1, insert: Schedule 1A — Speech pathology health services Part 1 — Amendments Health Insurance (Section 3C Cleft Lip and Cleft Palate Services) Determination 2020 1 Subsection 5(1) Insert: consultant physician has the same meaning as in subsection 3(1) of the Act. specialist has the same meaning as in subsection 3(1) of the Act. speech pathologist means a person who is a practising member of Speech Pathology Australia. telehealth attendance means a professional attendance by video conference where the rendering health practitioner: (a) has the capacity to provide the full service through this means safely and in accordance with the relevant professional standards; and (b) is satisfied that it is clinically appropriate to provide the service to the patient; and (c) maintains a visual and audio link with the patient; and (d) is satisfied that the software and hardware used to deliver the service meets the applicable laws for security and privacy. 2 At the end of section 7 Add: (8) Items 75854A, 75854B and 75854C that include the symbol (ASP) apply only to a service provided by a speech pathologist. 3 After Part 3 of the Schedule Add: Part 4 Group C4 Speech pathology health services Part 2 — Other provisions 4 Application of amendments The amendments of the Health Insurance (Section 3C Cleft Lip and Cleft Palate Services) Determination 2020 made by this Schedule apply in relation to an assessment or speech pathology health service provided on or after the commencement of this Schedule. 5 Affirmative resolution (1) This item applies to a legislative instrument made under subsection 3C(1) of the Health Insurance Act 1973 that: (a) is made on or after the commencement of this Schedule; and (b) has the effect of amending or repealing, or otherwise altering the effect or operation of, the amendments of the Health Insurance (Section 3C Cleft Lip and Cleft Palate Services) Determination 2020 made by this Schedule. (2) The legislative instrument does not come into effect until it has been approved by a resolution of each House of the Parliament. Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000 Amendment (2) Amendment (2) is framed as a request because it amends the Health Insurance (Section 3C Cleft Lip and Cleft Palate Services) Determination 2020 to create Medicare benefits in respect of assessments and professional services rendered by speech pathologists to eligible patients. The amendment would increase the amount of Medicare benefit payments made from the Medicare Guarantee Fund (Health) Special Account. As the effect of this amendment is to increase the amount of payments made from the Medicare Guarantee Fund (Health) Special Account, the amendment will increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 80 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 or in certain circumstancesthe standing appropriation in section 18 of the Medicare Guarantee Act 2017. Amendment (1) Amendment (1) is consequential on amendment (2). Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000 Amendment (2) If the effect of the amendment is to increase the amount of expenditure under a standing appropriation, then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request. Amendment (1) This amendment is consequential on the request. It is the practice of the Senate that an amendment that is consequential on an amendment framed as a request may also be framed as a request. These Greens amendments, circulated by Senator Steele-John, address the key request of CleftPALS that has been requested for many, many years for speech pathology services to be covered under Medicare. The Greens support this amendment, CleftPALS support this amendment and Speech Pathology Australia support this amendment. I note the government saying they are not going to be supporting this amendment because, basically, there's got to be a process to consider it. There has been so much evidence prepared, there is no reason why we need to further delay having these essential services covered under Medicare. The evidence is very clearly there. To quote CleftPALS: 'Affordable access to speech therapy is pivotal for children with cleft lip and palate conditions. It substantially improves their communication skills, boosts their self-esteem and enhances their overall quality of life.' Regrettably, the current exclusion of speech pathology services from the Cleft Lip and Cleft Palate Scheme creates undue financial hardship for families already grappling with the realities of the condition. Consider the experiences of Janeane Wolfe, whose son, Jack, has undergone multiple operations due to his cleft lip and palate. Wolfe highlighted the struggle saying: You're weighing up, do you pay your mortgage, put food on the table and pay your bills. Or do you spend this money on something that you really can't afford? In support of the Greens amendment, CleftPALS wrote, 'The proposed amendment by CleftPALS New South Wales, CleftPALS Victoria and Greens Senator Jordon Steele-John offers a lifeline to families by including speech pathology services in the existing Medicare cleft scheme. It's not uncommon for children affected by cleft lip and palate to undergo over 10 surgeries across 25 years to facilitate their mouth and jaw development. Depending on the severity of the condition, these children may need multiple rounds of intensive speech therapy to communicate effectively.' In a change.org petition, which collected over 14,000 signatures, Jessica Beckman, the parent of Ethan who is affected by cleft lip and palate, shared: My son Ethan is affected by cleft and palate. Not having a palate makes speech, language and communication difficult, as this affects his development and behaviour. This affects me because speech pathology services are not free and NDIS is very difficult— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 It being 12.15 pm, the debate is interrupted. Progress reported. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 33 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS PricewaterhouseCoopers 33 12:15 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise to speak on the PwC tax leaks scandal and what this means for corporate Australia, what this means for the private sector and what the Albanese Labor government is doing to address the malfeasance wherever it may hide. The PwC tax leaks matter was first revealed by the Australian Financial Review. As we now know it involved former PwC tax partner Peter Collins who was sharing confidential government information that was used to advise clients on how to circumvent new multinational anti-avoidance laws. We all know of this because of the great work of my Senate colleague Senator Deb O'Neill who originally uncovered the systemic nature of this matter. Her work on the Senate Economics Committee has accomplished so much in terms of what they are doing to hold very powerful companies and very powerful people to account. Without her it is very possible that this deliberate fraud on the Australian people would never have come to light so that it can be addressed. I know there are other senators in this place that have since been involved in scrutinising and trying to get to the bottom of this outrageous attack and undermining of the Australian taxpayer. As governments are held to account, the private sector and companies need to be held to account equally. If a company leaks confidential government information to benefit its own financial and other interests, as happened in this case, it does need to be held accountable. Cover-ups, wherever they occur, must be uncovered, and if it takes whistleblowers and this parliament to do so then so be it. When companies are not upfront and honest with their customers, and in this case the Australian people and the Australian government, then we must ensure we shine a light on it. Peter Collins and any others who have shared confidential government briefings about tax policy with partners and clients must be held accountable in parliament and within the Australian legal system. The Albanese Labor government, as it should, is turning up to work every day and will never run scared from companies or the private sector when they're engaged in allegedly illegal behaviour, unlike the Liberals who contracted out public servants' work to these greedy interests. We all have a duty in this place and the other place to call it out and to shed light on what is happening within these very powerful companies which work for government through contractual obligations. Seeing the 144 pages of emails and hearing about the consequent behaviour that followed at PwC has been horrendous because they display the unethical nature of behaviour inside this organisation over many years and that employees of the company have been calculating in the way they have conducted themselves. This behaviour is a breach of trust of the highest order, and it is unethical. This scandal has exposed several shortcomings in our regulatory frameworks that were largely ignored by the coalition for nine very long years, wherein the Australian Taxation Office was shamefully shot down after flagging this behaviour. Those opposite when in government were made aware of these shonky manoeuvrings that were going on, but they won't happen on our watch—not our watch. As a government we are taking significant steps to clean up the mess. The Albanese Labor government will oversee the biggest crackdown on tax advisers' misconduct in Australian history. We are cracking down on misconduct to rebuild people's faith in the system and the structures that keep our tax system and capital markets strong. We're also cracking down on the scourge of multinational tax avoidance and making sure that multinationals pay their fair share of tax in Australia. The package of reforms announced by the government include strengthening the integrity of the tax system, increasing the powers of our regulators and strengthening regulatory arrangements to ensure they are fit for purpose. Australians have a right to expect that these companies that provide services for the government are held to the highest standard of trust and integrity and do not engage in unethical and illegal activities. Since coming to government, it's become very clear to us just how entrenched the use of consultants and external labour had become within the Public Service under the previous Liberal government. We know they ran the Public Service down and were just handing out contracts willy-nilly. So legislation to strengthen the integrity of our tax system and increase the powers of regulators will be introduced this year, with consultation on the reform beginning very soon. The strong and substantial action that the Albanese Labor government is taking builds on the work already underway to improve government processes in the wake of the PwC tax leaks scandal, including new legislation to strengthen the Tax Practitioners Board introduced to parliament earlier this year, a $30 million funding boost for the Tax Practitioners Board to increase compliance activities in the October 2022-23 budget, and action to strengthen Commonwealth procurement frameworks by directed PwC to remove any staff involved with the confidentiality breach from contract work until the outcomes of the Switkowski review are known and by enabling departments to terminate contracts with parties that receive adverse findings against them from a legal body. The Australian Federal Police commenced a criminal investigation into PwC over the tax leaks scandal following a referral from Treasury. In addition, inquiries are currently being undertaken by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services and the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee into the issues relating to the PwC matter. This is a clear demonstration of the great work that is done by Senate committees in this place. But it won't just stop there. As a government, we're committed to significant action. We must improve the integrity of the tax system so multinationals and others who advise their clients to avoid Australian tax laws must be penalised. The current tax promoter penalty laws have remained largely untouched since their creation in the 2000s and have only been applied six times. Bigger penalties will reduce incentives to use confidential government information to help clients avoid tax. The general taxpayer out there cannot avoid tax. They're scrutinised by the tax office religiously. So too must these multinational companies be. We will also increase maximum penalties for advisers and firms who promote tax exploitation schemes from $7.8 million to over $780 million. We will expand tax promoter penalty laws so they're easier for the ATO to apply to advisers and firms who promote tax avoidance and increase the time limit for the ATO to bring Federal Court proceedings on promoter penalties from four years to six years after their conduct occurred. We must also provide more power to regulators which is why we will remove limitations in the tax secrecy laws that were a barrier to regulators acting in response to the PwC's breach of confidence; enable the ATO and Tax Practitioners Board to refer ethical misconduct by advisers to professional associations for disciplinary action; protect whistleblowers when they provide the Tax Practitioners Board with evidence of tax agent misconduct; give the Tax Practitioners Board more time, up to 24 months, to complete complex investigations; and, improve the Tax Practitioners Board's public register of practitioners so that people have more transparency over agent and misconduct. The PwC scandal has shown us that the regulations are not up to scratch. It has shown us that the private sector is ahead of government and law enforcement in being able to evade and stop scrutiny. This is mainly for large consulting, accounting and auditing firms. How this misconduct was able to occur and go undetected without consequence for so long is of major concern, particularly in light of the fact that the former government were advised. So this review will look at whether there are appropriate governance obligations on these firms in areas such as transparency, executive responsibility, management of conflicting interests and dealing with misconduct, Treasury will also coordinate a range of government responses to the PwC matter and the systemic issues being raised. The message must be relayed that if your company has engaged in this type of activity then you will be caught. The Albanese Labor government is focused on ensuring that the national laws are up to scratch and we will hold wrongdoers to account. That is our fundamental responsibility. The other issue is stop employing so many consultants. When the Liberals were in government they ran down the Public Service. We have a good Public Service. We need to continue to build the Public Service, build the skills so we spend less money on consultancies going forward. Commonwealth Games 35 12:25 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania It has been galling over the last couple of weeks to listen to a conga line of Labor members pathetically trotting out Daniel Andrews' talking points in defence of his decision to humiliate Victorians and embarrass Australians with the cancellation of the bid for the 2026 Commonwealth Games. These games were described as 'a games like no other', games that showcase Australia, Victoria, particularly regions of Victoria. By last month, they were reduced to just 'a 12-day sporting event'. They were diminished by comments of Labor leaders all over the country, disgracefully diminished, I must say, which is an insult to every athlete who has aspired to participate in the Commonwealth Games, who has participated at any level, had any level of success, but particularly those who have succeeded. And, of course, it has placed the actual viability of the ongoing likelihood of the Commonwealth Games under question amongst all Commonwealth nations. We saw, off the back of the Victoria decision, the decision coming out of Canada to cancel their bid for 2030. From the leader of the last games in Birmingham came the news that the Birmingham games may have been the last of the Commonwealth Games. It seems as though across all of those Labor luminaries who have sought to diminish the Commonwealth Games by trotting out Daniel Andrews' talking points have contributed to that question mark over the Commonwealth Games. Western Australia Premier, Roger Cook, called the event ''ruinously expensive' and said that they are not what they used to be. Daniel Andrews, Premier of Victoria said they were 'all cost and no benefit'. That is not actually true. Birmingham did make a return. The games in Australia in 2018 made a return—highly successful. If one of the most enthusiastic entries in the Commonwealth games, participating in the games and running the games, is saying those things on the international stage then what is the position of the games into the future? It really is, as I said, an insult to all of those athletes who have participated in the games over their careers. We heard today the news that one of our current champions, Kyle Chalmers, who was part of such a successful swimming event in Japan at the World Championships just recently, has announced that he will retire after the Olympics. Kyle Chalmers lists, amongst his achievements, as having a full set of Olympic gold, Commonwealth Games gold, World Short Course gold, and World Championship gold. The Commonwealth Games are ranked there amongst those other major events—I've done all those things now. It's also an important part of the overall sporting cycle. The Commonwealth Games, like the Olympics, are held every four years but in the off two years. There are those sports that are not part of the Olympic Games but are in the Commonwealth Games, so those sports rely on the existence of the Commonwealth Games for their high-performance funding. Netball, squash, lawn bowls—their high-performance funding comes through the Australian Sports Commission process that is supported by Australian taxpayers as part of our support for participation in sport and community sport but also for those high-performance athletes that make Australia so proud every time we see them on the international stage. How good was the result we saw from the swimming world championships just recently. We got 13 gold medals—more than the US—and clearly stamped our dominance on that particular event. Yet, at a state and Commonwealth level, all we hear from the leaders of the Labor states and the Commonwealth is Daniel Andrews's talking points. 'Nothing to see here. We're concentrating on the other 17 events on the green and gold runway,' says the Commonwealth Minister for Sport. Well, who built the green and gold runway? It wasn't the Labor Party; it wasn't this government. Granted, some Labor state governments have participated in that process, particularly Queensland—and I acknowledge Premier Palaszczuk and her team, including Stirling Hinchliffe, the Minister for Sport up there, who did a great job in assisting to prepare the bid for the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games. But Australian athletes, both able-bodied and para-athletes—bearing in mind that the Commonwealth Games is a combined event for both able-bodied and para-athletes—now don't have that pathway, don't have that opportunity, to participate in an international sporting event on Australian soil in 2026 because of the decision by the Victorian government. The Victorian government told us, the Commonwealth: 'We've got this. We will fund it all, we will manage it all, we will make it a games like no other.' And then, at the end of the day, they walked away. Labor's contribution to the green and gold runway is now minus one event; prior to the sacking of the 2026 Commonwealth Games we had 18 events, and there are now 17. Those 18 events were procured and supported by the coalition while we were in government—so it is minus one for the Labor Party since they came to government. And they won't even stand up for the event. They won't acknowledge that Australia has an important part to play in this. I've mentioned the fact that the Commonwealth supports sports that are participating in these events through the Australian Sports Commission and the relationship that Commonwealth Games Australia has with the Australian Sports Commission; it's an extremely important part of it. The Commonwealth also supplies guarantees to support the Commonwealth Games and all these major events. If anyone was in any doubt about how well we do these things and the fact you can get a return, just have a look at what is happening with the Women's World Cup right now. The level of expectation, excitement and passion, particularly for women's sport, could not be demonstrated any more highly than in what we're seeing with the Women's World Cup right now. The Matildas are leading the news nearly every day. It's just brilliant to see, and it is a huge game-changer for women's sport in Australia. Hosting the Commonwealth Games in Australia could have the next cycle of that for a whole range of athletes, both able-bodied and para. It is so good to see para-athletes participating alongside able-bodied athletes at the Commonwealth Games. It is a fantastic innovation that has occurred. The Commonwealth Games have been cancelled once, during the war, since they began in 1930. Australia—along with the other states, but Australia in particular, as a leader in this space—has a responsibility to actively participate in ensuring that the 2026 games go ahead. We know that there are negotiations going on around compensation, but the Commonwealth has to lean into this and step up and play its part. It can't just say, 'Hands off, it's nothing to do with us,' because that is not true. It needs to step up and play its part in ensuring that a major global sporting event happens, and, if possible, comes to Australia. Racism 36 12:35 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Everyone has the right to live without fear of racial abuse, discrimination and violence, but far too many people in Australia continue to suffer racial harm and trauma. People already marginalised by the mainstream are further targeted in one racial tirade after another. It seems that espousing racist crap has absolutely no consequences for public figures, despite all the harm and humiliation they cause. Take Sonia Kruger, who has gone on to win a TV popularity contest. How disheartening that is. This is the same person who vilified people like me on national TV, when she went on a rant calling for an end to Muslim immigration. Given many chances, Sonia Kruger has never even come close to an apology for her hateful anti-Muslim remarks. Now she has won a Gold Logie. And it's not only that: Sonia Kruger continues to be platformed by major media outlets across Australia. How disappointing. But, sadly, this is not surprising to anyone who has been at the receiving end of racism. Anti-Muslim racism isn't just normalised here; it is celebrated. Vilifying Muslims, other people of colour and First Nations people actually seems to elevate your profile in this country that is so steeped in racism. Our media and public discourse continues to normalise and enable racial hatred. This is deeply problematic and yet another reminder of how much work needs to be done in this country. Racism is so harmful and has wide-ranging negative impacts on individuals, on communities and on societies as a whole. At the heart of it, racism is a control mechanism. It seeks to silence and exhaust people of colour until we decide that it is just not worth it to keep sacrificing our own health and safety to keep fighting. Its intention is to force us out of the public debate, away from demanding our rights, and to sit in the corner as passive observers with our heads down. My presence in the Senate remains an affront to many. They are offended that people of colour and Muslims have the audacity to not only exist but to open our mouths and join the public debate. But I'm still here and proud of my identity as a brown Muslim migrant feminist woman and as a Greens senator. People with stories like mine are asked to constantly explain our existence. For some, we will never be Australian enough. As author Toni Morrison said: The function, the very serious function of racism is distraction. It keeps you from doing your work. It keeps you explaining, over and over again, your reason for being. I have not been shy of rocking the boat and calling it like it is, but it is undeniable that I and others like me who talk about racism do bear a cost: death threats, persistent and insidious trolling online and abusive phone calls. But what other options do we have? I wonder how many voices have been silenced. I wonder how many good people who would add so much to our public debate, who have so much to offer to our communities, have been forced to take a step back because of the devastating impacts of racial hatred. We must do more to ensure our public spaces and discussions are not just free of racism but actively antiracist. We must ensure that people are held accountable for their racist views, but, time and time again, we see a lack of accountability. Former AFL player Sam Newman goes on one racist rant after another on his podcasts, with his latest one attacking First Nations people, their history and culture. Yet major companies Apple, Google, Spotify and other podcast platforms have not pulled his content down. Racism in sport isn't new. It is not in the least bit surprising to anyone who follows sport that players and supporters can unleash racial hatred on First Nations people and people of colour at any time. In fact, sport remains a deeply unsafe place for marginalised people. Although I have been focused on women's football lately, it's no secret that my heart belongs to cricket. But the reality is that cricket has been steeped in racism and is a sad reflection of broader societal prejudices and inequalities. I was watching the ashes on TV when Australian cricketer Usman Khawaja was singled out for abuse at Lord's, only recently. This is another one in a long line of incidents of discrimination that Khawaja has had to face, not for his playing but for who he is: a brown, Muslim migrant. In a recent interview, Khawaja talked not only about the overt racism he experiences but also its more insidious, structural form. He noted that the entire Cricket Australia board, national selectors and senior coaching staff are white. How is that possible in such a multicultural nation and in such a multicultural sport? But sport is not the only unsafe and exclusionary workplace around. There are too many. Just look around us in parliament. Yes, there are a few more First Nations people and people of colour in this place, but we are nowhere near reflecting the streets and suburbs of Australia. This small, positive change must be accompanied by a genuine and transformational commitment to antiracism in every political party and structure. From MPs to political advisers, there is very little racial diversity here. Racism continues to be deeply exclusionary. Nearly a quarter of Australians aren't white, yet we still see so little cultural and racial diversity among those in positions of leadership, power and public life. Surely this can't be acceptable to us. Surely this is not something that we could be proud of. Yet, day in and day out, it feels like people of colour and First Nations people in this chamber are the only ones speaking out about it. I want to particularly acknowledge Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people whose very identity is yet again being used as a political football in the debate on the Voice. The Leader of the Opposition should be condemned for his recent comments saying the Voice proposal 'will re-racialise our nation'. How out of touch is this man to not acknowledge the deep disparities and disadvantages First Nations people face? The truth is: this country is and has been racialised ever since invasion. We have a long and bloody history of colonisation in Australia, and First Nations people still face the worst of racism and discrimination. We must commit and recommit to ending this, not on behalf of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities but alongside them. There is still such a reluctance among many to acknowledge that we are a settler-colonial society. It is a simple fact that Australia is a nation built on the invasion and colonisation of sovereign nations. It surprises and saddens me that this reality is still denied, often so vehemently. Across the country, people of colour suffer. We suffer the harm and humiliation of racism. We suffer the insults and the isolation yet we must carry this burden all alone with the work of also calling it out. Despite the toll it takes on us, we must continue to be the lone voices in this place crying foul, and we must do this all with a brave face. The personal toll racism takes on each and every one of us is extraordinary yet we go on in the hope that one day this place will reflect the streets and suburbs of our nation, that one day we will reckon with Australia's colonial past and make amends. I hope that day is coming sooner rather than later. Despite the personal toll that it takes on me, I will continue to fight racism with whatever I've got. Road Safety 38 12:44 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia Good on you, Senator Faruqi. There is no room for racism in any corner of this great society and home we call Australia. I stand beside you and other people of colour and, of course, our First Nations people. On a brighter note, I would like to touch on a magnificent event that occurred here in Canberra on Saturday but also in the other major cities around Australia. It was the convoy. The Transport Workers Union joined with the Australian Road Transport Industrial Organisation. Two groups that would never be on the same fence industrially ever came together—and they have been coming together for a long time now—along with NatRoad, the National Road Transport Association, and the National Road Freighters Association in convoys around the country to highlight to politicians, particularly in this building, the inadequacies and the dangers of the road transport industry. Our trucking families are now coming together, united, unified, with all the voices of the road transport industry, to say, 'Enough is enough; we can't continue to keep going down this path of destruction.' In the last two years since that magnificent report from the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee entitled Without trucks Australia stops came out on 25 August 2021, we have lost over 100 truck drivers. Those deaths should never have occurred. Those fathers, brothers and sons should still be with us today. It's the most dangerous industry here in Australia. It's not only that. We have had no fewer than 500 transport companies shut up shop, fold, close their doors or be put into administration. They just couldn't keep going. Think about that—500. We could think about small family businesses where mum and dad started with one truck and then suddenly had two, four or five. Or we could talk about some at the bigger end of the scale, like Scott's transport. Forty per cent of the refrigerated transport task in this nation was carried on the back of Scott's transport trucks. Some 1,500 employees woke up one day to find that they had no job because they had been crunched so hard and, once they were put on their knees, they could not get up. This is a transport company that has been working predominantly for Coles. Coles got out of this very easily. Coles felt a little bit of guilt at the time. They thought: 'Oh, my God. We have been screwing you down for so long and not paying you for 30 or 45 days, so we will help you out and pay you for seven days.' Guess what? They still went broke. I take my hat off to Coles because at this point they know they can't continue going down this path. But the people of Australia did not even flinch. They didn't miss a beat on the shopping radar because the transport industry did what it does every single second, minute and hour of the day. We keep picking up, dropping off and delivering. So the goods were still there. Don't worry. There was a lot of panic, but the transport industry came through. Thank goodness! So hence there's been the convoy. I was here in Canberra for the convoy. I was proud to be part of it and to speak at the convoy. At the convoy here in Canberra, we had over 300 trucks. These weren't trucks from Canberra. Think about this. There were a few Canberra trucks that joined in, absolutely, and we appreciated that. But these trucks came from Sydney on a Saturday morning. Think about this while you are lying in bed on a cold Saturday morning. You might stay in bed for another half-hour, then get up and have a nice cup of coffee and a bit of toast. These dedicated drivers, with the support of their truck owners, the companies—they provided vehicles for these drivers—got out of bed at about five in the morning to muster in Sydney to drive to Goulburn and meet at eight o'clock to pick up other trucks to come down to join the convoy in Canberra and send the message across to the federal government, which I am a proud member of, that: 'We cannot keep going like this. We have to have transport reform, and we have to have transport reform now.' Also think about this: not only did those drivers—and I sincerely thank them and the companies that provided the vehicles—give up fuel for what they had to do but they lost about 10 hours of the day. If you think about the trucking industry—and I know how it works better than anyone in this joint and the other place—it's not a nine till five, five days a week operation. These men and women are living and breathing this stuff 24 hours a day. They might not have the steering wheel in their hand for the whole 24 hours, but the mind doesn't stop. The mind doesn't clock off. It clicks in at one o'clock in the morning saying: 'I haven't done this, haven't done that. Oops, I haven't paid that bill. My goodness, I've got to remember to tell so-and-so that there's a flat on the trailer.' We don't want roses thrown at our feet, but we do want to be rewarded properly. We want to be respected, and we want to be treated like the rest of Australia. There is nothing wrong in the vernacular use of the English language for the road transport industry to say: 'We want to be safe. We want to be sustainable. We want to be viable, and, God help us, we want a bit of profit, too.' They don't only want cost recovery; they want a bit of profit, and so they should. Every other industry proudly talks about it, so why shouldn't they? This was the Canberra convoy that came down from Sydney. There were over 300 vehicles, and there were 450 drivers. A lot of drivers jumped in the trucks to buddy up with their mates to come down. You should have seen the range of vehicles we had, predominantly prime movers. But there were also vehicles for general freight, refrigerated freight, oil and gas, the mining industry, parcel delivery, cement, the construction industry. There was a magnificent fleet here, including the magnificent fleet from Ashton haulage. They had about 10 trucks in the convoy—they really opened my eyes. I saw a fellow walking around with one of their flags wrapped around him, so I introduced myself to him, the proud owner of the company. He was just one of the 450 that came down. There were also convoys in other cities on that Saturday. In Brisbane there were 150 vehicles, and 200 drivers went to that one, buddying up with their mates. In Melbourne there were 70 with 150 drivers. I saw the footage on the bridge, unbelievable. In Perth there were 50 vehicles and 80 drivers. In Adelaide there were 30 vehicles with 60 drivers. In Darwin there were 15 trucks with 30 drivers. The attendance doesn't sound huge, but that is huge because for the first time in history—and I stand in this building and won't be shamed or shouted at or corrected when I'm speaking because I'm right—the road transport industry is unified. They're unified and coming together and absolutely looking towards the green chamber over there for the next tranche of industrial relations legislation where transport, under Minister Burke, will have our own section, finally. Finally, we will have the ability to be heard by government and have our input into government so that our voices in the road transport industry are heard. In this legislation the bureaucracy and governments might start making decisions for the road transport industry after having to listen to transport operators. What a concept that is! At 63 I am still shocked to think it is taken that long, but sadly it has. As someone who has been in the transport industry for 46 years, this day can't come soon enough. But here's the challenge: we know the legislation will go through the House and then it will come over here. We know that the Labor Party, the party of government, will be 100 per cent behind these new industrial laws to protect the transport workers and, finally, hold to account the gig economy—don't forget them. But the test will come. We know the Greens will support these laws because the Greens always support anything to do with supporting workers. The test will come with the crossbench. I've been having conversations with the crossbench, and I know the transport operators and transport company owners and drivers and gig economy drivers have been having very good conversations. The crossbench is engaging, and I thank the crossbench for that. I look forward to the crossbench coming together and supporting our legislation. But here's the big question: where will that lots sit? Where will the Liberal-National coalition sit? Over the years—it really makes me want to vomit, but I have had to put up with it—I've see Liberal-National ministers who can't wait to put a fluoro vest on and get into the cab of a Kenworth, make sure it has some bling, hold the steering wheel with one hand, get out there and say: 'I love the trucking industry. I have such close connections to the transport industry. I once had a next-door neighbour whose grandfather had a long-lost cousin who had a truck. I love the industry.' Well, we've seen your love for the trucking industry because people in the trucking industry have been in this building. They wanted to meet with you. Sadly, it hasn't happened. But they'll all be down here when this legislation hits this place, and I will be looking for all those truck-loving LNP member in the Senate to see where their vote will go. I hope to goodness—this should not be political. You should be on their side with us. You should be supporting that magnificent industry, and let's keep it safe, sustainable, viable and profitable. Albanese Government 39 12:54 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales There is an arrogance emanating from the Albanese government, and it's really starting to manifest itself in the smug self-assurance that ministers in this place are the font of all wisdom. We have seen it in the way this government has gone about ignoring those on the front line, whether it be irrigation communities, pharmacists, Western Australian farmers over the banning of live exports or slashing funding to control the environmentally catastrophic pests like fire ants and let's not forget the Labor's transmission lines debacle. The Albanese government has already gained a reputation for lip service when it comes to consultation. They are forcing businesses and industry groups to sign confidentiality agreements just to consult on policies that directly impact what they do. Forcing businesses to sign these agreements is an appalling way to give Australians confidence that the government is listening and acting on the concerns they have. I mean, what happened to the government of transparency? We've heard from our constituents that Labor ministers are refusing requests. We've heard from a mayor in the north of the state that she was told that the minister couldn't meet with them or their constituents because they're concerned about the bureaucrats' safety in travelling to rural communities. Really? They're not sending bureaucrats out to consult on the ground because they're concerned about safety? They've offered webinars instead of face-to-face meetings. They insult our communities by giving very short time frames. Many who've suffered years of droughts, floods, fires and now the threat of drought again are basically being told their voice doesn't matter. Ministers and agencies are refusing to directly engage. We need to look no further than the Minister for the Environment and Water, whose refusal to engage with farming organisations and their communities in the Murray-Darling Basin is highlighted on her Twitter feed, which shows she's only been to the basin a handful of times. She likes to publish repeat photos of her looking out the window of the aeroplane as she's flying over the basin. Her lack of time on the ground has well and truly been noted. As the Chair of the Speak Up campaign, which is a community organisation based in the Riverina, formed to represent the communities that are directly impacted by the Basin Plan, Mrs Shelley Scoullar, said: The recent fiasco of information events on the Strategic Water Purchasing Framework has made me want to fight harder than ever to ensure our rural communities are treated with respect and dignity. This farce, disguised as consultation, again highlighted the lack of 'care factor' from city-based bureaucrats and we cannot allow this to continue without standing up and saying 'that's not good enough'. The minister for water's lack of interest in engaging with basin communities has been mimicked by her department, who should hang their collective heads in shame that they believe having meetings with only a handful of selected invitees, with invites only sent out the day before, and then hurriedly coordinating a single webinar for those not invited is acceptable. It's an absolute slap in the face for basin communities and the wider Australian community who are and will face further increases in the cost of fresh food like milk, fruit and vegetables if another thousand megalitres of licences are removed from the productive pool, which is what the minister is threatening to do. To put that volume of water in perspective, the minister is talking about buying back the same volume of water that is currently used in the irrigation districts in South Australia, Sunraysia and the Goulburn-Murray irrigation districts combined. Imagine—if that water were brought out of these regions, their economies would be wiped out. These are economies dependent on irrigation. Australians would be faced with massive increases in the cost of food, and it would probably mean that many of our staples—our dairy products, our fresh fruit and vegetables and our cereals—would have to be imported. You wouldn't be able to buy cow's milk from an Australian dairy to put on your Australian cereal, because you won't get Australian cereal, but you'll probably be able to buy your almond milk, so that'll be okay. It should be noted that the Victorian Labor government and the New South Wales Labor government have both made it clear that, while they support extensions to the Basin Plan time frames, they do not support buyback. Those states have not changed their previous positions, first agreed to back in 2012 when Tony Burke wrote the Basin Plan. He wrote into the Basin Plan that any moves to recover the additional 450 gigalitres of water had to be done in a socioeconomically neutral manner. This is Labor policy. It enjoyed bipartisan support because it acknowledged the concerns of the communities. But, while the water within the Basin Plan's 2,750 gigalitre recovery targets has been apportioned and the sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism shortfall will be attributed between the states and valleys, the 450 gigalitres are not apportioned. The 450 gigalitres can come from anywhere, and, if it is 450 gigalitres for South Australia, one should argue that it should be 450 gigalitres of South Australian water, because you need to get the water there. Don't forget that there are constraints in the system that limit how effectively you can get environmental outcomes. Until these constraints are dealt with, you're only dribbling water down the river channel. Currently, we've got a crisis in the wine industry. Many wine growers are actually looking and wondering whether they are not better off selling their water and retiring. How will that impact South Australia's Riverland? I note from the answer to a recent Senate estimates question on notice that the department has done work to model the impact of buying back the shortfall—potentially 750 gigalitres of water—and to recover a million-odd water licences. The government stated that ABARES has done some preliminary work. Previous work done by ABARES in 2020 found that water recovery had added an estimated $72 per megalitre to the temporary water prices in the southern Murray-Darling Basin. If they've done that work, and if it's had that impact, the Albanese government needs to be transparent, show integrity and release the further preliminary work that ABARES has now been done. What will it actually cost taxpayers to recover a million water licences? Some industry experts are estimating up to $20 billion will be needed to recover that water through buybacks. Let's not forget the impact it will have on the water market. It will squeeze the water market further, limit the ability and raise prices for any irrigators remaining in the system. I want to finish by putting on the record that it is not the coalition who are blocking progress on the Basin Plan. I've repeatedly reached out to the minister offering bipartisan support to a sensible and practical solution. Unfortunately, the minister has not accepted my invitation. I've had one meeting in 16 months, and I have not had a single response to any of my written correspondence. It's frustrating. National Disability Insurance Scheme 40 13:04 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania Vulnerable Tasmanians are going without care because of a glitch in technology. It's something that should be an easy fix. Instead, it has seen participants in the National Disability Insurance Scheme losing their carers, and the problem is about to affect far more people if we don't get it fixed soon. NDIS participants can choose to employ a support worker of their choice, even if this worker is not linked to an active provider. Most support workers need to have a working with vulnerable people check to work with NDIS participants. Last year changes were made in the way Tassie support workers complete these checks. The online process works across several platforms, but the federal platform and the Tasmanian system aren't lining up. As a result, the system is falling over and support workers are falling through the cracks. What's supposed to be an easy process to navigate has turned into a nightmare for everyone involved and no-one is taking responsibility for it. I want to tell you about Janet, Blade and Anne. They live in my patch of Ulverstone in Tassie. Janet has been caring for Blade for seven years. Blade is a young man in his 20s and he has intellectual disabilities. He requires Janet and a second carer to make sure he gets the care he needs. Blade's mum, Anne, is his legal guardian. Janet first tried to renew her working with vulnerable people card back in May. Her employer Carer Solutions is no longer listed as an active provider, so it means that her employer is now Anne or Blade. It took Anne six weeks to fill in the online application to become Janet's employer. So they went through all that and lodged the application, but the glitch in the Tassie system means that self-employed support workers never get to the next step in the process. They just cannot progress in the system and their application drops into a hole of despair. Without the working with vulnerable people check, support workers are unable to continue working with their participants. In Janet's case, she tried to apply for her check more than eight times. It didn't work. Time was running out. If she didn't have her card she would no longer be able to care for Blade, so Janet did the only thing she could think of: she got job with another NDIS provider already in the system so that she could get through the process smoothly. Guess what? It worked. But now she has a second job and other clients to care for. It means she's unable to spend the time necessary to care for Blade, and she's working herself into the ground to work these two jobs. When I first spoke to Janet she was exhausted. She was about to run out the door to go to work at her second job. She's taken the bullet because, without her, her clients would suffer. Janet cares so much about Blade that she will do whatever it takes to make sure she can still work with him. And these changes have impacted on Blade's care and his day-to-day routine he has come to rely on. He faces further instability because his second carer is about to go through the exact same thing. If the only available solution to getting the check is to get a second job, both of Blade's carers will be tied up working for another company and other clients. Where does that leave Blade and his needs? Why should Blade have to suffer because of a tech glitch that no-one wants to take responsibility for? Carer Solutions have tried to contact the NDIS commissioner and the Tasmanian Consumer, Building and Occupational Services department several times about the issue. Each organisation says 'not my problem' and tells them to talk to the other organisation. If this error isn't fixed soon, Carer Solutions estimates it could impact at least 80 participants and 123 support workers at home—and that's just support workers and participants under their umbrella. This will hit hundreds of Tasmanians. It's not feasible for support workers to get a second job just to make it through a standard working with vulnerable people card check. Now I'm not the most tech savvy person around, but this shouldn't be so hard. I'm calling on the Tasmanian state government to urgently fix this problem. The basic care of vulnerable Tasmanians shouldn't rely on a flawed online process. Rheumatic Heart Disease 41 13:09 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I'd like to speak about rheumatic heart disease and bring this disgraceful disease to the attention of the Senate, and to pay tribute to families who are fighting against this disease in our remote and regional parts of this country. It's a disease that should have been eliminated a long time ago. I pay tribute, in particular, to the families of Doomadgee, in Far North Queensland, but also to families right across the Northern Territory and Western Australia—to Mummum Alec Doomadgee, to Weenie George and to others. Many would have seen their stories on Four Corners. The most important thing we need to know about rheumatic heart disease is that it is preventable. Rheumatic heart disease is a disease of poverty, and the chief cause is poor living conditions and overcrowded housing. It develops because of repeated untreated episodes of acute rheumatic fever. Acute rheumatic fever is itself an immune response to a strep A infection. When it's undiagnosed or misdiagnosed, acute rheumatic fever eventually causes damage to the heart's valves, and this is rheumatic heart disease. Acute rheumatic fever can be treated, but rheumatic heart disease is incurable. People with rheumatic heart disease need ongoing complex medical care to minimise any further damage to the heart's valves and may eventually need surgery. This is a lifelong, chronic health condition. It causes chest pain, shortness of breath, weakness and fatigue, palpitations and swollen legs and face. This morning we heard from Kenya McAdam, who is a Jaru and Kira woman from Halls Creek in Western Australia currently living in Katherine in the Northern Territory. Kenya spoke frankly about her experience of having rheumatic heart disease. She suddenly experienced a heart attack when she was just a teenager. She didn't even know she'd had a heart attack until she was admitted to ICU in Darwin. She experienced breathing difficulties, pain and difficulty walking. She was later diagnosed with rheumatic heart disease. At such a young age, she had to make challenging decisions about what her heart surgery would look like. Kenya has kept up with 100 per cent of her penicillin injections to keep on top of her condition, a very hard feat considering the regularity and pain involved in taking those injections. Our health practitioners across the country, our Aboriginal health workers—people like Kara Rudkin and Greg McAdam, to name a couple—are very much involved with trying to educate, communicate and prevent this disease. We've also got the Snow Foundation, and I thank the Snow Foundation for its commitment to eliminating rheumatic heart disease. And I commend the ongoing efforts of the Deadly Heart Trek in raising awareness and preventing the disease. And I certainly thank all the practitioners. But we do have a long way to go. We are an incredibly rich country, and we should be able to eliminate this disease. The Australian government is committed to eliminating it as a public health issue by 2030. That's just a few short years away. I'm pleased to say that the Albanese government's first budget, in October last year, made a solid commitment to the task, with an additional $14.2 million directed to combat acute rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease, specifically in First Nations communities. Much of this increased investment will go towards an existing partnership with the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, NACCHO, to deliver Australia's Rheumatic Fever Strategy. I want to personally reach out to all of our health professionals who are on the Deadly Heart Trek. You know who you are. I really appreciate the work that you're doing. I look forward to getting out to a lot of our communities—in particular, to Doomadgee—at some point to be able to talk to the families and communities there and wherever I travel in my role as Assistant Minister for Indigenous Health, to ensure that the health of Indigenous people is maintained as an absolute priority of this parliament and of our government. Corporate Governance 42 13:14 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I believe this country has a significant problem when it comes to corporate crime, and I believe that the regulators are doing a very poor job of prosecuting people who are breaking our laws and the government is becoming increasingly complicit in this protection racket that is damaging our economy and damaging the capacity of people to seek redress when wrongs are committed against them. There are a series of things I'd like to walk through in the time I have. First, in the recent budget the government decided they would cut the funding available to the Financial Regulator Assessment Authority. They decided they would take money from the FRAA and reduce its capacity to do reviews every two years; it can now only do reviews every five years. The point of the Financial Regulator Assessment Authority is it is supposed to ensure the regulators are doing their job, which is to enforce the law. We have a major problem in this country where regulators have not been enforcing the law, so cutting funding to that agency is, at best, a peculiar priority. The second issue is the PwC matter. On the weekend we saw the Treasurer and some other ministers announce 'the biggest crackdown on tax advisor misconduct in Australian history' and that the government would increase maximum penalties for advisers and firms from $7.8 million to over $80 million. That's all well and good, but a very fine law is no law at all unless it is enforced. I think the question on PwC and all these corporate crimes is not one of having laws but one of enforcement. I believe these statements made on the weekend are not going to be effective because I don't believe the government is serious about improving law enforcement. I make that statement with a lot of confidence because the ASIC inquiry, which we've been running since October, has uncovered a slew of misconduct issues inside ASIC but also in relation to cases where an enormous amount of work has been done by the regulator but no action has been taken in terms of securing civil and criminal penalties. I can name a bunch of cases, whether it's Nuix or ALS or super fund executives engaging in insider trading, where the evidence is very clear that the law has been broken but people are not being put into jail and significant penalties are not being applied. The government's priority here has been to cover up our capacity to investigate ASIC, through the use of public interest immunity claims which have been made in tandem by the Treasurer, suggested by Minister Jones. Last week here in the Senate, Minister Gallagher made it clear that the government's policy was to support ASIC's position to cover up their case files, to obfuscate and obstruct the Senate, and, therefore, give us no pathway for improving corporate law enforcement in this country. Of course a regulator under siege wants to do everything in the dark, but our job is to push things into the sunlight because sunlight has shown itself to be the best form of disinfectant. That takes me to my last point, about APRA. The FRAA found in its review of APRA that APRA had not done enough work and was underdeveloped when it came to its supervision of the superannuation industry, and needed to do more work on the conversion of liquid assets to cash and unlisted asset valuation practices. At estimates in February I asked APRA about their efforts to ensure that superannuation members are getting accurate valuations, particularly as this is an emerging equity issue between older and younger Australians. APRA took the question on notice and have responded only recently to say they undertook a survey of 31 different funds, and 26 of those funds were doing quarterly valuations; therefore, only five are doing annual valuations. Given the market ructions we have in Australia on a regular basis, an annual valuation isn't good enough. In essence, corporate crime in Australia largely goes unpunished and the government is helping cover it up. Homelessness 43 13:19 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Homelessness Week gives us an opportunity to pause and hear from the people experiencing Australia's housing crisis. It's time to listen to their stories and their unique perspectives to inform how we can collectively address the housing crisis now and into the future. This week, a delegation of older woman from across the country with first-hand experience of homelessness and housing insecurity have joined us here in parliament. They are here in the gallery right now, and I'd like to acknowledge them. Across the day, they are meeting with some 25 parliamentarians. We talk a lot about the terrible statistics of housing stress and homelessness in this place, but it's important to remember the real people behind them. I want to take the opportunity to share their stories. These incredible women are part of Housing for the Aged Action Group, an organisation dedicated to preventing older people from experiencing homelessness. As advocates, these women use their voices to seek change. Their resilience to overcome their own housing insecurity and determination to prevent others from expressing similar hardship should inspire all in this chamber. Here with us, we have Marie, who recently turned 70. Marie had a difficult road to find safe housing after a marriage breakdown. Just as she was feeling safe, the government sold the public housing block where she had found a supportive community. Bee, now 68, was battling stage 3 cancer when she became homeless following a marriage breakdown. Having dedicated her life to her family, she had little in savings or superannuation and ended up sleeping in her car. Wendy is a 75-year-old divorced professional who, after 25 years of marriage and four children, has moved 11 times in 18 years, as she struggles to find an affordable rental. Linda, in her late 50s, was forced to move 18 times in three years, drawing on her super to cover bills. This is despite Linda having previously had the security of being a homeowner. Michelle, in her early 50s, had a long career in aviation and management accounting and was paying a mortgage by herself prior to a relationship breakdown. As a single mother with a dependent child, financial institutions refused to offer her a mortgage. Dani, in her mid-50s, was one of many women who lost employment during the pandemic. Unable to meet her rent, Dani experienced homelessness and only recently secured public housing, which has made an enormous difference to her health and wellbeing. Vera is 82 years old, and lives in over-55s community housing. She advocates tirelessly on the challenges of making ends meet on government income support payments like the age pension. Maggie, in her late 50s, recognised the systemic issues underpinning her and hundreds of thousands of older women's experience of housing stress. Her shame and embarrassment turned into a passion to change the systems that have failed each of them. These women's experiences reflect the experience of many and highlight how homelessness is not a result of the choices they've made. The policies of governments past and present have failed them. We need more accessible, affordable, long-term housing and more holistic services to get people into them. Every person deserves a home, and collectively we have a responsibility to deliver it. Macquarie Point Stadium 43 13:23 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania A decade ago the satirical ABC comedy Utopia joked about a planned infrastructure project in Tasmania so foolish, so wasteful and so misguided only a monorail around Salamanca wharfs could be seen as more outlandish. Do you know what that joke project was? It was a football stadium on Hobart's waterfront. Now, in a case of life imitating art, that very prediction has come to pass when in May this year our Prime Minister, Mr Anthony Albanese, announced a quarter of a billion dollars of federal government funding for a stadium on Hobart's waterfront. The rest of the bill has to be footed by the Tasmania state government and other counterparties. It has been made very clear in Tasmania that we can't afford a $1 billion AFL stadium, which, by the way, most predictions have realistically increasing to at least $1½ billion if not $2 billion. Ambulances are constantly ramped, and my fantastic state parliamentary colleagues have recently got up an inquiry into this. People are living in tents. Indeed, Mr Albanese drove past people in tents on his way to announce the stadium funding. There are so many other critical issues we need a billion dollars for in Tasmania rather than the bread and circuses that are being offered to us by this Prime Minister. I want to say, as an ex-AFL player myself and someone who closely follows the AFL, which I know most Tasmanians do, Tasmania is one of the founding football states in Australia and has a long history of making rich contributions to the national game. Indeed, at the AFL shindig here last night I saw a lot of prominent Tasmanian players. They were ex-AFL players but nevertheless legends in their game, like Brendan Gale from the north-west of Tasmania and Matthew Richardson and others. We deserve our own team. We want our own team. Most Tasmanians would love an AFL team, me included, but not with this price tag—not with a billion-dollar plus price tag at a time when we desperately need the funding for other, more important matters. At the AFL shindig last night I was briefly introduced to the new AFL CEO, Andrew Dillon. I heard the speeches there last night. They're not reading the room. Tasmanians feel bullied by the AFL in this deal—they really do. They're not happy. All the polling shows it. The Tasmanian Liberal government is now a minority Liberal government because of this deal. There have been defectors. It is possible that Tasmania could go to an early election any day because of this AFL deal. There aren't many Tasmanians celebrating what the AFL is proposing for Tasmania. I have absolutely nothing against Mr Dillon—I don't know him at all—but I would ask that he reads the room, as I would ask our Prime Minister to read the room. In Launceston, in the north of the state, where I am from, we have an excellent stadium that has been used by Hawthorn for over a decade and is getting a $75 million upgrade. It will have a bigger capacity than the $2 billion stadium they're going to build on the waterfront in Tasmania. Why do we need another one? We don't. Most Tasmanians acknowledge that. What we need is for our Prime Minister to increase federal funding for our hospitals, to increase the co-contributions towards health that the Commonwealth makes with the Tasmanian state government and to give us the money we need for other federal infrastructure projects. There are a whole range of things that Tasmanians have been calling for for a number of years. I want to make it very clear in the Senate today that Tasmanians want an AFL team, but can we just get one without being blackmailed into coughing up a billion-plus dollars of money that's desperately needed elsewhere? I ask the AFL to reconsider the terms of the agreement. By the way, they were very proud of what they'd achieved for the AFL, but it's not achieving anything for Tasmania, in my view and in the view, I would say here today in the Senate, of most Tasmanians. We want an AFL team and we deserve an AFL team but we don't deserve to be bullied into spending over a billion dollars for a stadium that no-one wants and that we don't need. Australian Parliament 44 13:28 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales I rise with, I'm sure, the agreement of the Deputy Government Whip, Senator Ciccone, over there that there's no greater joy in the Senate than rising, impromptu, with a couple of minutes of notice, to fill in the gap when senators' statements don't go for quite as long as they should. It's truly one of the great things we do in this place. I'm enjoying it today. I'm standing here to grab that extra 1½ minutes that was not used by other senators. During this time I'd like to talk about what didn't happen yesterday. It was not transmission Tuesday. It was so disappointing for me. I tried to get a question up in question time about the hypocrisy of not coming here to talk about loss of native habitat for one thing or the other, but not for anything we want to talk about on loss of native habitat. That was quite disappointing for me, but there's a process you have to go through. For those listening at home, when you're part of a party you have to submit a question, which is considered by people who decide if it will be asked during question time. Senator Antic has submitted many fine questions that never see the light of day. He is the JK Rowling of unpublished questions over on this side. We are sitting here now, grabbing this time, filling in just another 21 seconds— Senator Ciccone 281503 Give us something valuable, Ross! Senator CADELL 300134 It is invaluable—so that we can get to two-minute statements, where everyone gets a say. As Senator Ciccone would know, as part of this process, people can't speak twice. So, when you are told you need to jump to find a speaker, it can't be anyone who has already spoken or will speak, and that's part of the art of being a whip, and it does very well, and thank you very much. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 Now we have reached 1.30 pm, we'll move to two-minute statements. Housing 44 13:30 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I rise today to pose the question: what is it when you do the same thing over and over again expecting a different result? The answer, in the apocryphal quote from Einstein, is of course insanity. Yet we have those on the opposite side, particularly on the crossbench, the Greens, proposing price caps. We saw the Labor government embrace price caps with the gas industry, which has been an absolute failure. We've seen price caps tried throughout 3,000 years of economic history. We have records of price caps going back to Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, and we have the records showing that even then price caps failed. In fact, they did precisely the opposite of what they were set out to do. And now we have the Australian Greens, the alliance partner of this Labor government, talking about price caps in rent. But, you see, price caps in rent have been tried before as well, particularly in the United States, and they just simply don't work. In fact, they do precisely the opposite of what they're supposed to do. They deter new investment in housing stocks, and new investment is exactly what you want if you want a long-term trend to put downward pressure on rental prices. We have 3,000 years of economic history, and probably the only issue that just about all economists would agree on is that price caps do not work. But, yet again, we have the tail wagging the dog, the Greens driving Labor towards another price cap. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 45 13:32 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia I rise today to talk about the Port Adelaide Football Club, a club that is so much more than a football club; it is a core part of the South Australian community and is a rich contributor to that community. They have a proud history of supporting community by investing in development and education programs that use the power of elite football to promote meaningful social change. Their programs are designed to empower communities in need and address a series of social issues through working with community and investing in community. I am very, very proud to stand here today to talk about the fact that the Port Adelaide Football Club has come out with a statement to wholeheartedly support the recognition of First Nations people in the Constitution. It is great to see a football club like Port Adelaide who do walk the talk, who do spend their time investing in the young people of our community, in the First Nations people in our community and in addressing some of the deep scarring issues in our society. I will read a little of their statement: The club has deliberately undertaken an approach of listening and learning around the matters outlined in the upcoming referendum including establishing a First Nations Advisory Committee, comprising of past and current First Nations staff and players as well as community leaders. We are proud of our ongoing role in advocating and facilitating meaningful and ongoing change for First Nations people and communities. They go on to recognise everyone's 'right to make their own decision'. I stand here today being so terribly proud of their standing up for this important issue. (Time expired) Afghanistan 45 13:34 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Next Tuesday, 15 August, will mark two years since the fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban. For two years now people have been fleeing for their lives in the face of a humanitarian crisis unfolding in that country. The Taliban continues to erase the rights of women, removing them from all aspects of life. The Afghani women's soccer team fled from Afghanistan to Australia in 2021. They cannot go home and are not allowed to represent their country in the World Cup happening right here, right now. Earlier this week, I stood with the Australian Afghan community to call on the government to do more to support refugees and asylum seekers fleeing from humanitarian crises like these and seeking asylum in countries like ours. In Australia, for over a decade, people fleeing from humanitarian crisis like that in Afghanistan have faced cruel and brutal government policies. There are still over 12,000 asylum seekers in Australia whose lives are in limbo. They are unable to receive permanent protection visas as a result of the last government's dodgy and cruel fast-track process. All people seeking asylum in Australia should be allowed a fair and just process for permanent protection regardless of where they come from or how they got here. Some of these people have been here for 10, 11 or 12 years without any access to essential services like Medicare or guarantees of education for their children who were born here. They deserve certainty for their futures. They have made Australia their home, and they should be allowed to stay. This new government has an opportunity to right the wrongs that have been done for well over the last decade. The Greens are calling on the government to give these people the opportunity to reapply for a fair and just outcome through a resolution of status visa. No-one should be punished for seeking asylum. (Time expired) Abortion 45 13:36 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia On Saturday 5 August, the Western Australian Minister for Health, Amber-Jade Sanderson, stated in the West Australian newspaper: There's no such thing as a failed abortion. There's no such thing as babies born alive after an abortion. Well, she's wrong. On Thursday 24 March 2022, Sue Ellery MP, who was representing the health minister in WA, stated in the WA parliament that, in fact, 31 babies were born alive after abortions between 1998 and 2021. In Queensland and Victoria, 724 babies were born alive following failed abortions between 2010 and 2020. Furthermore, today I've been provided with a statement from a whistleblower midwife in a large Australian hospital. This person wishes to remain anonymous but stated, in short: 15. I think the frequency of the number of babies being born alive is 20% maybe. Maybe a little less than that. Sometimes you just have the baby twitching it's not necessarily that they are alive. Babies who are born more premature are less likely to survive or live for an extended period, but some are still born alive. 16. In terms of how long the babies remain alive, every baby is different. Of what I have seen recorded anywhere from 15 minutes, another it was an hour. … … … 21. Recently a 21 +6 healthy and normal baby was aborted and lived for 5 hours. The midwives held the baby all night, even as they worked, because the parents didn't want a bar of it. I have confirmation from two midwives who held the baby and from the birth and deaths book. The reason that it took this baby so long to die is because the size was really good, you know, sometimes the scans are really bad, and they get a size wrong.' When the opportunity comes to vote in our Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2022, I want this chamber to listen to these words and understand that anyone who says this practice does not occur is wrong. Showcase WA 46 13:38 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia It gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak about Western Australia, the greatest state of this wonderful nation. Last night, in this building—and I know you were all rapt, because you were all down there—we had Showcase WA, and it couldn't have come any sooner. I want to take my hat off and thank my parliamentary colleague and friend Senator Louise Pratt and Mr Ian Goodenough, the member for Moore. I appreciate the effort that they put in. Western Australian businesses and the Western Australian government were here. We had representatives from the mining industry and the gas industry. We had the magnificent Stan from the Kimberley regional development authority. It was great to see the Kimberley represented here, because—I did tell a lie—the Kimberley is the greatest part of the greatest state of the greatest nation in the world. They were showing their wares. There was also, of course, the City of Swan. You wouldn't expect anything less when the City of Swan come. The City of Swan don't muck around; they travel in the thousands. They were here. They put on a magnificent showcase. Of course, what comes out of the City of Swan is a myriad of agricultural products. They are wonderful people, and there are also some wonderful wineries. It must've been wonderful, because everyone was lined up there just to taste the best wine in the best state of the best country—you know what I'm going on about here; it's about WA! There was also Little Creatures brewery, which is a famous, iconic brewery in my hometown down in Fremantle. It was great to hear—the Prime Minister spoke and the Leader of the Opposition spoke. It was great to see all the rest of the senators, members and staffers salivating around the greatest state of the greatest nation, Australia, and over its wares. As much as I like to say that we are the engine room of the economy—we do know that; I'm so proud to be a Western Australian; we do the heavy lifting—I don't mind visiting the eastern states. I like the eastern states, too. And the Victorians probably have the best football team—Geelong. Indigenous Organisations 46 13:40 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Last week I wrote to the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney, and the PM, regarding an investigation into an organisation which operated under the purview of the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations, or ORIC. I am still waiting for a response. I have requested a meeting with the minister to discuss what she is doing to ensure this investigation is expedited. I've asked about her justification for why its subjects are permitted to lead another organisation receiving taxpayer funding while this investigation is underway, her justification for why its subjects are permitted to remain in positions advising the Australian government, her explanation for why three investigators have been removed from the investigation when ready to recommend or initiate legal action and what action she took when first informed of this matter in 2021 in her capacity as the shadow minister for Indigenous Australians. I am confident the minister will agree that such a matter should be resolved as soon as possible to give the Australian people, who possess immense goodwill to the goal of alleviating Indigenous disadvantage, confidence that their taxes are providing meaningful assistance to Indigenous people genuinely in need. I am sure the minister understands the need to restore this confidence before Australians are asked at the coming Voice referendum to approve the establishment of yet another Indigenous body and bureaucracy, funded by taxpayers to the tune of billions of dollars. I've personally seen the evidence of this gross misuse of taxpayer funds, and I seek leave to table these documents for review by senators and the Australian people. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 Is leave granted? Senator Carol Brown F49 No. Senator HANSON BK6 That just goes to prove— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 Perhaps, Senator Hanson— Senator HANSON BK6 I've got my time. I'm sorry; I denied it. I've still got time on the clock. What I want to say is: this is why nothing has been accountable to the Australian people—because you refuse to allow people the right to view documents that prove— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 We did give you a little bit of extra time. Perhaps you want to share those documents around before you seek leave to table them so that people know what they're providing leave for. That may be helpful in the future. Ukraine 47 13:42 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia As vice-chair of the Australia-Ukraine Parliamentary Friendship Group, I've been working to identify areas where Australia can better assist Ukraine in the face of the humanitarian disaster caused by Russia's war of aggression. The resulting humanitarian crisis requires international collaboration and billions of dollars, over many decades to come, to repair the war damage that Russia has inflicted. However, it is also very clear that, on a bipartisan basis, we need to develop a more effective and coherent way of facilitating materiel, humanitarian and, eventually, development aid. By lending our expertise and assistance in so many areas, Australia can play a much greater role in alleviating the suffering of millions of Ukrainians and contribute to a brighter future for them. But we do need a better plan to do that. This is where I believe it is now time for Australia to introduce a Ukraine democracy defence lend-lease act such as that introduced by the US last year. In November 2019, in a keynote address to the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC, I discussed the little-remembered US Lend-Lease Act of 1941. I did so as I believe that, back then, it provided a useful framework and a successful precedent for new ways of considering how we more agilely and effectively connect our shared economic and security interests. This short but highly farsighted act, introduced by President Roosevelt, enabled him—as, then, still the president of a neutral country—to lend or lease war supplies, and also, eventually, humanitarian assistance, to other allies to promote the defence of the US. Australia was a significant beneficiary in our war effort, but it did result in what's called reverse lend-lease for all nations. It is time to— (Time expired) Qantas 47 13:44 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I ran into Qantas CEO Alan Joyce here in Parliament House earlier today. I'm told he's hosting a dinner tonight in his honour, although my invitation appears to have met the same fate as many customers' luggage—it's gone missing! Far more importantly, Qantas workers and their unions are also here today. They're here to ensure people in this building are well informed about how Qantas has degraded and dehumanised its workforce. After years of outsourcing and cost-cutting, Qantas is hollowed out, a husk of its former self. He illegally outsourced 1,700 ground handlers at the same time those opposite gave him $2.7 billion to keep his workforce together. He offshored engineering and maintenance, and what a disaster that's been. Joyce has outsourced flight attendants across 14 different companies to get rid of what he's called 'legacy conditions', because these days at Qantas secure work and fair pay are just a distant legacy of the pre-Joyce era. In fact, Qantas's workforce is divided across 38 different companies, a legal loophole to suppress wages and conditions. Highly skilled workers in some of these outsourced companies are getting paid wages as low as $23.41 an hour in some of the lowest paying jobs in the country. Qantas is unrecognisable today as the spirit of Australia it once was. It's the most complained about company in Australia. The cancelled flights, the lost bags, the safety incidents, the ancient planes—the company has become a joke. Unfortunately, it's Alan Joyce who's laughing, because he's leaving with a $25 million bonus while Qantas workers and the travelling public are left wallowing in the mess he's made. Missing and Murdered First Nations Women and Children 47 13:46 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I've spoken many times in the Senate about the Senate inquiry into missing and murdered First Nations women and children, but today I'd like to provide the Senate with a brief update about this inquiry. This year the committee has heard from families and communities in northern New South Wales and in Western Australia. We are in the process of organising hearings this year in Queensland and will also be travelling to the Northern Territory in the new year. The primary focus of this inquiry is to hear from families and communities in a culturally safe way. However, the inquiry has also undertaken to hear from police and government agencies after we've heard from families, so we can examine the often poor and dismissive responses that the committee has been made aware of directly by families themselves. Recently, the committee heard from the New South Wales police and New South Wales government about what they are doing to improve cultural awareness and address trauma and the policies and processes that guide this. It became clear that there was some awareness in the higher ranks and some efforts to make improvements, but we are not seeing the changes in outcomes or on the ground. In fact, just over the weekend, in my home state of Western Australia, we saw the tragic death of a First Nations woman—her name is Tiffany—who was found in her home on Monday. Her partner has been charged. I spoke to Tiffany's aunty, Rosalie Kickett, just before I came into this chamber today. The injuries sustained by Tiffany have been described as horrific and as extreme violence. First Nations women are not even safe in our own homes. However, her aunt has described her as someone who everyone felt safe with, a strong, resilient, smart woman and a mother of two young babies. My heart goes out to the family and the community who are dealing with yet another unacceptable loss of a caring, loving mother, sister and friend. This is unacceptable, and our First Nations women and children deserve better than this. I'm sorry that this has happened yet again. Political Parties 48 13:48 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria They support freedom of speech by secretly colluding with big tech to censor on social media. They support freedom of religion by doing nothing to protect it, even when Christians are sacked from their jobs just because they quoted the Bible. They support the inalienable rights of all Australians but not the right of the unvaccinated to leave the country or hold a job. They support lean government by letting the nation's debt balloon to $1 trillion. They cut burdensome taxes by introducing sneaky invisible subsidies for renewables that push up the price of energy. They minimise interference in our daily lives by allowing employers, including state governments, to mandate COVID vaccines that never stopped transmission and resulted in injury and death for some. They support equal opportunity by endorsing a racist voice to parliament. They preserve Australia's natural beauty and environment by allowing great amounts of it to be covered in inefficient wind turbines and solar panels that will only end up in landfill and are extremely resource intensive to manufacture. They support individual freedom and free enterprise by sending thousands of small businesses broke while allowing big corporates to operate and thrive. They support an efficient private sector by burying it in red tape and bureaucracy. They support basic freedoms of parliamentary democracy by colluding to protect the two-party system. They are nothing but a shadow of their former selves. Western Australia 48 13:50 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Figures released yesterday show that Western Australia has contributed $404 billion to the Australian economy. Put another way, that is 17.5 per cent of Australia's gross domestic product. What does that mean? Western Australians per capita have a benefit of $143,000 a year compared to just $89,000 for the rest of Australians. But last night that was all put behind us—there was no mention of the GST, Fremantle Dockers or West Coast Eagles—as Western Australia's best of the best came to our national parliament to show off all the things that are great about Western Australia: iconic brands like CBH, Rio Tinto, Perth Airport and others. The distillers from the Kimberley to the Swan Valley area of our state all came to Canberra, and they showed off the best of the best that WA has to offer. On behalf of Western Australian senators, thank you very much to all of those parliamentarians who came and saw what we had to offer, and reminded themselves of the wonderful contribution that Western Australia makes to the success of our whole nation. Thank you very much, also, to the wonderful staff of Ian Goodenough, who led the coalition's contribution. We look forward to bringing the best of the best of the best to the parliament again to show off Western Australia, and, in doing so, we challenge other states to show off what they can bring—what can New South Wales bring? What can Tasmania bring?—knowing always that Western Australia stands tall, stands strong, and makes such a strong and important contribution to the wellbeing of our whole country. Northern Territory: First Nations Australians 48 13:52 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania This year I had the pleasure of visiting Alice Springs again to do my due diligence. This time I got to meet with Martin Dole, an assistant commissioner with the Northern Territory police and a born and bred proud Territorian. Martin is one of those most dedicated police officers who are always looking solutions and ways to empower the Aboriginal police and Aboriginal liaison officers working alongside our Northern Territory police. Not long ago, they were in the same building as the police. For a lot of Aboriginal people, a police station is a very scary place. Mr Dole gets this, so he decided to make a little critical change. He found the money, out of his own policing budget, and rented a building around the corner. He thought that with their own space, these officers could find their own solutions for their own communities. My goodness, has it worked! I was very honoured to meet these liaison officers and Aboriginal police officers in March this year. Many of them are traditional owners and they are already making such a massive difference. I tell you what—I just love this story—a few months back there was some trouble in a remote community. This is how it works: a few of the young men were gathering and people were getting anxious that something big was about to kick off. Aboriginal police and Aboriginal liaison officers were already onsite because—guess what? They got a sniff of what was going on in their own communities. They talked down these boys and restored the peace, just like that. How about that? This is a good lesson for all of us. When we listen to local communities, when we empower the Aboriginal communities and their leaders, we get solutions. Why haven't you done this? This is a small move. It doesn't cost a lot of money. You could have been doing that this year. Listen to the voices. Listen! This is something that works, and it is cost effective. Get out there and put it in place. (Time expired) Indigenous Health: Prisons, Aboriginal Deaths in Custody 49 13:54 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria People in custody have a right to culturally safe and equitable healthcare services. They should be leaving prison in better health than when they entered the system, but the opposite is the case, as they are denied crucial healthcare services. The current system is failing. Unnatural deaths in custody continue to occur at shamefully higher rates than in the community—many of them, resulting from preventable health issues. Just this week there has been another Aboriginal death in ACT custody, that of TJ Dennis. TJ had serious mental health issues, but, rather than making sure he got the support he needed, prison staff included him in a hangman game in their tearoom. Shame! My thoughts are with his family and community. Early and preventable deaths amongst blackfellas have become so normalised that people hardly blink an eyelid. To meet our human rights obligations, governments must ensure universal access to culturally safe and equitable health care. Allowing access to Medicare is one part of achieving this, starting with a few crucial item numbers, as well as improving access to PBS medicines, the NDIS, social and emotional wellbeing services, drug and alcohol support and sexual and reproductive health services for women, trans and gender-diverse people. We need mechanisms for routine and independent assessment of prison health care and proper oversight of prison operations, including implementing the national preventive mechanisms under OPCAT. Finally, we must properly resource First Peoples community controlled— (Time expired) Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 49 13:56 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania We had a very successful series of community events in support of the 'no' campaign for the Voice referendum in southern Tasmania during the parliamentary recess. I was very happy to host my friend and colleague, the shadow minister for Indigenous affairs, Senator Nampijinpa Price, while she was down for them. Hundreds of Tasmanians showed up to a number of events across the state to hear the case for the 'no' campaign and it was a very important opportunity for Tasmanians to hear the voices that this government doesn't want heard. This is the hypocrisy of the Albanese government's tactics. They claim to need an Indigenous voice, and yet they are using the power of the state—with all of their resources and their spin doctors and their media management—to discourage Australians hearing from Senator Nampijinpa Price and from Indigenous leaders from around Australia, including my home state of Tasmania, who do not support dividing Australia in the way that this Prime Minister wants to. I was very pleased to be able to speak at some events in Hobart with Senator Nampijinpa Price. I can attest that it is certainly not lost on those who came along that the Prime Minister is more than happy to bring in overseas celebrities for media stunts, telling Australians we have to change our Constitution, and yet he also wants to shut down Australian voices. They are seeing the Prime Minister and his ministers hide the details of his proposed body from Australians while demanding that we vote to embed something that this government won't even explain into our country's Constitution. Thank you to the hundreds of Tasmanians who turned out across our state, not just in Hobart, to hear the facts and the voices that the government doesn't want heard. My friend in the other place, the member for Braddon, Gavin Pearce, also hosted some forums up in his neck of the woods, and I understand they were likewise well attended. It was a great opportunity for the 'no' campaign to get out and about in Tasmania. Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program 49 13:58 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I recently had the honour of participating once again in the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program, this time along with Senator Hume and Senator Hughes. I spent time on field with members of the ADF as part of Exercise Talisman Sabre, which is our largest multilateral combined training activity. Again, I want to pay tribute to the four soldiers whose helicopter crashed while participating in this exercise and send my deep condolences to their families and mates. The tragic loss of these four men during the exercise is a reminder that there are no safe or easy days for Australians who serve to protect our nation. It was great, once again, to join our Defence personnel at sea on HMAS Adelaide, just as I experienced last year on board HMAS Canberra. Seeing the dedication of our men and women who are part of the ADF, in the context of multilateral military exercises, was something special. They are some of the best ambassadors for Australia's spirit of patriotism and mateship. We also attended a live-fire exhibition at the Shoalwater Bay training area conducted by Australia and our allies. This was an impressive display of the interoperability of the allied forces with integrated artillery, attack aviation, ground assault, and command and control. Again, I pay tribute to our troops who serve. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 We will move to question time. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 50 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Middle East 50 14:00 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Minister, prior to the election, Labor MP Josh Burns promised Jewish Australians' interests would be protected 'irrespective of who forms government', and the now Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, claimed on matters to do with Israel that Australia 'spoke with one voice'. Yesterday, though, Australia Israel Labor Dialogue co-convener Adam Slomin said your unilateral decision to change Australia's longstanding position on Israel and the disputed territories: … places Australia as an outsider and not a cooperative supporter for both parties to reach a two-state solution. Meanwhile, the Zionist Federation of Australia and the Executive Council of Australian Jewry jointly described your decision as 'inaccurate, ahistorical and counterproductive' and that it put a peace agreement further out of reach. Minister, can you cite precisely what motivated your government to make this unilateral change at this time other than to appease Labor's factions ahead of next week's party conference? 14:01 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Birmingham, for the question. I would say to him, first, what I said yesterday—that we are guided in our approach to the Middle East by the principle of advancing the cause of peace. We are guided by the principle of progress towards a just and enduring two-state solution. Senator Cash I0M Labor talking points! Senator WONG 00AOU That's actually my view. What I outlined yesterday to Senator Fawcett—and I appreciate Senator Fawcett would have different views about some of the issues—is the set of positions that we have ensured. The government has international fora, and domestically, which are consistent with that principle. The government was also deeply concerned—and I would hope that all in this place would be—about the alarming trends we have seen in the Middle East in recent times. I would make the point that these trends are significantly reducing the prospects of peace. We are seeing escalating violence and the loss of Israeli and Palestinian lives, civilian lives. The UN reports that more Israeli and Palestinian civilians have died as a result of violence in the West Bank this year than in any full year over the last decade. NGOs also report—and this is relevant—that more settlement units have been advanced in the first half of this year than in any full year in the last decade. I would've hoped that Senator Birmingham and the opposition would share our concerns that have been expressed about changes to the judicial system and to the planning regime which would enable further settlements. So I make those points. That is the context and those of the overriding principles of how we approach these issues. Senator Birmingham also said this is inconsistent with longstanding Australian policy. That is simply incorrect. If you look at policy as articulated by previous governments—until, most recently, partway through the last government—our position is consistent. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, first supplementary? 14:03 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Minister, you speak using the phrase 'alarming trends'. Do you acknowledge there have also, in recent times, been positive trends such as the normalisation of relations between Israel and many other Middle Eastern nations? How is the decision of your government not going contrary, and in the opposite direction, to those trends we're seeing with many other Middle Eastern nations? 14:03 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia (—) (): We already have a diplomatic relationship with Israel. We already recognise Israel. In fact, it was an Australian Labor government and an Australian Labor minister who moved the motion, that you would recall, in terms of the establishment of Israel—or, if not moved it, spoke to it. I would make this point about consistency. Consistency is important. What we will not do is tell one thing to Australians and another thing to the international community, which is what you did. On the one hand you continued to support Security Council resolutions. You affirmed, for example, UNSCR 478—that Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem constituted a violation of international law. You affirmed UN Security Council resolution 2334, which went to settlements. But you told voters of Wentworth something else, so if you want to talk about consistency perhaps look at yourselves. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, a second supplementary? 14:04 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Minister, now that you have changed Australia's position in relation to Israel yet again during the life of your government, and done so in order to appease the factions ahead of next week's national conference, can you rule out any further changes to Australia's position, particularly in relation to the recognition of Palestinian statehood, regardless of whatever factional divisions, debates, shenanigans, occur at next week's Labour Party Conference? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Before I call the minister I'm going to remind both sides of the chamber to— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, I am addressing the chamber. I've asked for silence while the minister continues her response. 14:05 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia (—) (): I think anybody who has observed the way I have approached national conference on these issues over five years would know I am very consistent on these issues and I will be continuing to assert the same position to all parts of the Labor Party that I have asserted since pre 2018. I think people know that. Some people do not like that position and some people do but that is the view I have. But in terms of consistency, I would like to remind you that in relation to the phrase 'occupied territories' in 1981 Fraser's foreign minister, Tony Street, expressed the government's opposition to annexation of occupied territories including East Jerusalem. The same position was articulated by Foreign Minister Hayden and Prime Minister Keating. Foreign Minister Downer also stated Australia's support of UN resolutions on the applicability of the Geneva Convention to the occupied territories and it goes on. We are consistent and we are principled on this issue and on all issues. (Time expired) Health Care: Community Pharmacy Agreement 51 14:06 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator Gallagher. With the community pharmacy agreements playing a crucial role in ensuring Australians have access to safe, affordable and life-saving medicines, can the minister detail the government's intentions regarding the negotiations of the new Community Pharmacy Agreement? How does the government plan to build on the legacy of the PBS, introduced 75 years ago by the Curtin Labor government, to continue providing affordable medicines? What are the specific strategies to enhance the role of community pharmacies in our health system? 14:07 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Polley for her question and for all her work over many years on the community affairs committee and on other committees that have looked at issues around affordability and accessibility of health care and medicines for Australians. The PBS is one of the most important pillars of our health system. This has been recognised by Labor governments stretching right back, including those who introduced Australia's first scheme designed to ensure that Australians would be given access to affordable medicines. Labor remains committed to providing Australians with access to affordable medicines, and community pharmacies, as Senator Polley said in her question, play a vital role in our health system. This includes ensuring pharmacies can work to the fullest extent of their skills and training to build the strength of the sector. We want more Australians to benefit from the experience and the care that is provided by community pharmacies in more ways than they already do. For the past 30 years, since they were introduced by the Hawke government, a series of community pharmacy agreements have outlined the way in which the government reimburses community pharmacy for dispensing subsidised medicines on the PBS, providing medication management programs and services. As the government strengthens Medicare and reforms primary care, there is a renewed focus on how every health worker, including pharmacists, can contribute to the health of Australians. The Minister for Health and Ageing has announced that the government will soon begin negotiations for an eighth community pharmacy agreement and this agreement will support the government's ongoing commitment to improving patient health outcomes and providing cheaper medicines for all Australians. As I said yesterday, the 60-day dispensing is an important cost-of-living measure that will ease the burden on household budgets by some $180 per medicine, per year. This is an important cost-of-living measure and the Senate should support it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Polley, a first supplementary? 14:09 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania In the recent budget, the government committed to introducing 60-day prescriptions. How is the government planning to reinvest the savings from this initiative back into the community pharmacy sector? Could the minister elaborate on the measures already in effect and those on the way to strengthen the role of pharmacists in our health care? 14:09 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Yes, I can, Senator Polley. Every single dollar that the government saves with the 60-day prescriptions will be reinvested straight back into the community pharmacy sector, so pharmacists play an even more central role in the health care of Australians. Some of the reinvest measures have already taken effect, like the doubling of the budget for the Regional Pharmacy Maintenance Allowance and the changes to opioid dependency treatment for tens of thousands of Australians who can now buy medication at their PBS approved pharmacy at PBS prices. Other measures are on the way, like expanding the scope of pharmacists into residential aged care to work on-site in a clinical role, improving medication management and safety, and on January 1 we will further expand the National Immunisation Program to pharmacists and have pharmacists finally paid the same rate that a doctor gets to administer vaccines. We have also delivered a major increase in government payments to every single pharmacy around the country, which are now paid seven per cent more for services like dispensing, handling, administration and infrastructure. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Polley, a second supplementary? 14:11 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Could the minister further explain how the government is fulfilling its commitment to reinvest savings from the move to 60-day prescriptions? Specifically, what support is being provided to rural and regional pharmacies as part of the reinvestment package, and how will these investments ensure the ongoing strength and vitality of the pharmacies in our largest rural towns and remote communities? 14:11 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I acknowledge the work of our Tasmanian senators who have been making representations to the government about issues that have been raised with them as this reform is being progressed. As part of the reinvestment package, the government is doubling the total budget for the Regional Family Pharmacy Maintenance Allowance. There are currently over a thousand pharmacies in regional, rural and remote Australia that access this allowance, and current data shows more than 87 per cent of all pharmacies in regional, rural and remote Australia access the allowance. Under the increase, Australia's most rural pharmacies may be eligible for almost $100,000 in government assistance. And from September 1 this year, the government is introducing the Regional Pharmacy Transition Allowance to support pharmacies in the transition to 60-day scripts. This will provide $148.2 million over four years for eligible pharmacies in regional, rural and remote Australia. Defence 52 14:12 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria My question as to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Minister, the government is facing a rank-and-file party revolt over AUKUS ahead of next week's Labor National Conference, with media reporting more than 40 Labor branches all calling for a review. Is this division within the Labor Party the reason for the Albanese government's billions of dollars in cuts to the defence budget, which is being forced to absorb more of Australia's commitment to Ukraine, reallocate defence funds to DFAT and is still expected to find additional as-yet unidentified savings from within the remaining defence budget? 14:14 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The answer to that is no, although it was a multi-pronged question. I think it is 'no' generally, certainly to the first point. We are a party that has our debate in public. I'm sure it's of great interest to you, because yours is not. I'm sure it's also of great interest to the Greens, because they like private conferences as well. But we are a broad based party that have our debates in public. We're prepared to have the debates in public, and what you will see at that conference is the leadership of the Australian Labor Party articulating very clearly why AUKUS is important for our nation's security. I have spoken about it at length, including at the National Press Club, which you may not have read, Senator Paterson, but you may wish to, and I've also responded publicly and very clearly to criticisms from various sources about AUKUS. We have articulated the strategic circumstances which have rendered the government's approach necessary. We have articulated the benefit of the technology sharing of the AUKUS partnership, and we are committed to ensure that we deliver continued progress on AUKUS, as was demonstrated at the recent AUSMIN meetings. In terms of the various other aspects of his question, I would make the point that Sir Angus Houston and Mr Smith who wrote the DSR did talk about the importance of DFAT contributing to assuring the peace through the work that DFAT does diplomatically. That is about making sure we use all levers of national power, strategic deterrence and military deterrence but also diplomacy in pursuit of a peaceful, stable and prosperous region. That is a good thing. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson, first supplementary? 14:16 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria The Minister for Foreign Affairs will be interested to know I did, of course, read her National Press Club address. Prior to the election the Prime Minister stated national security is above politics and that this would be a government which delivers on its commitments and brings the country together as a key element of ensuring a stronger and safer Australia. With over 40 Labor branches openly revolting against the AUKUS agreement, isn't it clear that the Prime Minister is failing even to bring his own party together to support Australia's most significant national security commitment since the ANZUS treaty? 14:17 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia First, if I can, I ask for a reminder of relevant funding in relation to Defence and DFAT. I'd make the point that in 2023-24 total DFAT resourcing is $7.8 billion and total Defence resourcing in 2023-24 is $55 billion, so I think the senator's question ought to be taken in the context of those figures. Yes, we do believe national security should be above politics. We don't believe that, in pursuit of an election victory, a government should try and scare Australians about the drums of war. We don't believe, in pursuit of an election victory, a government should try and smear a senior member of the opposition as the 'Manchurian candidate'. We don't believe in making unilateral decisions which are contrary to the position Australia has held for decades because a government wishes to win a by-election. So you're right. If you want to be part of making sure national security is about politics, I'm happy to have a discussion. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson, second supplementary? 14:18 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Media are reporting that the Prime Minister is attempting to shut down debate on AUKUS at the national conference to avoid embarrassment to the government. If the Prime Minister cannot trust his own party to be unified in support of AUKUS, how can Australians and our partners trust the Prime Minister to reverse defence cuts and deliver on his commitments to AUKUS? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Before I call the minister, I would ask those on my right particularly to refrain from interjecting and pointing. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Green! 14:18 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I think you can see the leadership that the Prime Minister and the cabinet are articulating on these issues. I do accept these are different times. I understand why it is important for us to have that discussion with the community, including inside our own party and beyond, and we have been. We understand that we are asking the country for a multidecade commitment when it comes to not only the AUKUS partnership in general terms but also the submarines. That is a multidecadal commitment which has to be bipartisan—in fact it has to be multiparty—and I'm happy to spend the time I do spend alongside the Deputy Prime Minister, in party forums and more broadly, articulating the strategic rationale for AUKUS and for the submarines, and we will continue to do so. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 53 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Republic of Korea 53 14:19 The PRESIDENT 112096 I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the gallery of the Australian Political Exchange Council's eighth delegation from the Republic of Korea, led by Dr Yong Lee. 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 53 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Universities 53 14:20 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales My question is to Minister Watt, the Minister representing the Minister for Education. Minister, today Universities Australia said that we need more people going to university to meet future skills needs, but uni is becoming a pipedream. Expensive degrees and ballooning student debt have made university increasingly out of reach for young people, who don't deserve to be saddled with a debt sentence simply for pursuing education. People are already being locked out of the housing market and denied personal loans and are rethinking dreams of further study because soaring student debt is getting worse and worse. Under just two years of the Labor government, student debt could rise by a massive 15 per cent. Minister, will your government wipe student debt and make university free so that people can go to uni without being crushed by student debt? 14:21 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Faruqi, for the question. I'm very happy to take a question about access to higher education because of course the Labor Party is the party of access to higher education. Under Labor governments going back to the Hawke-Keating days, university and higher education participation in this country has gone up significantly, without the addition of crippling fees like we saw under coalition governments, so I am always happy to take questions about access to higher education. We understand that many students do face significant issues in relation to the debt that they incur, particularly as a result of changes that were made under the coalition government to university funding arrangements. Senator WATT 245759 I know Senator Henderson and her colleagues supported increasing fees to very high levels when they were in government, and the Labor government is taking this very seriously. It is important to remember that HELP loans, which are particularly the subject of the question that Senator Faruqi has asked, are not required to be repaid until a person reaches the income payment threshold. And, of course, HELP repayments are a set percentage based on your income. They don't go up unless someone's salary goes up. But we do recognise that this is an issue facing many young people in the community, and that's why the issue of affordability is one that will be looked at as part of the government's Australian Universities Accord. When HECS was introduced, in 1989, 7.9 per cent of Australian adults had a university degree. Now it's almost 33 per cent, so that is the legacy of past Labor governments in making higher education much more accessible, whether it be in the cities or even in the regions—and I would have thought some coalition senators might be a bit concerned about providing access to higher education in regional areas. Labor will always support higher education accessibility. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, a first supplementary? 14:23 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Minister, the coalition's Job-ready Graduates scheme was an indefensible, unmitigated policy disaster. Universities Australia said this today, and Labor's own accord process has said that too. A generation of students, especially female students, are being saddled with exorbitant debt because of this Job-ready Graduates scheme. Minister, Labor has been in government now for 14 months. Why haven't you dumped this awful, punitive fee hike? 14:23 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Faruqi. In fact, Minister Farrell reminds me, it's been 15 months that we've had the Albanese Labor government delivering to Australians, whether they be young Australians, middle-aged Australians or senior Australians. What I can tell all students out there who might be watching this or listening to the proceedings is that the only way that anything will change for affordability of and accessibility to universities will happen under a Labor government. It certainly won't happen under a coalition government who wants to make fees higher and limit participation in higher education, and it certainly won't happen under a Greens government because, of course, that is a notion that will never actually exist. It is only as a result of Labor governments that we will see the issues of accessibility and affordability of higher education tackled— Senator Waters 192970 When? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters! Senator WATT 245759 and that is something that we are already on the job tackling. Senator Waters asks when. I can tell you it will be a hell of a lot earlier than it would ever happen under the Greens because you will never have the opportunity to do anything about this or any other issue. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, a second supplementary? 14:24 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales The 2021 National Student Safety Survey, which was conducted during the COVID lockdowns, found that a staggering 275 students are assaulted on campuses each week. We need to know the true extent of this rape epidemic now that the students are back on campus. Universities Australia have not committed to another survey, which is unacceptable. Will the government ensure another student safety survey is conducted to capture the reality of sexual violence on campuses. 14:25 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Faruqi. I share Senator Faruqi's concern about the quite disturbing rates of sexual violence that we continue to see on Australian university campuses. Of course, it's obvious that any student on a university campus—just like anyone in the community—should have a right to feel safe when undertaking their education or any other activity. The Minister for Education, Mr Clare, released the Australian universities accord interim report a couple of weeks ago. The interim report makes five recommendations on these matters, and one of those recommendations is the need to improve— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Faruqi? Senator Faruqi 250362 President, I had a very direct question, so my point of order goes to relevance. I just want to know: will the government ensure another student safety survey is conducted? The PRESIDENT 112096 You did talk about the survey, so the minister has gone to that part of your question. I will remind him— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters, your interjections are disorderly. I am responding to a point of order. I will remind the minister of the second part of your question, Senator Faruqi, but he is being relevant. Senator WATT 245759 Senator Faruqi, I am aware the 2021 survey found that one in 20 students had been sexually assaulted since starting university, an unacceptable figure. The minister has asked the Department of Education to nominate an expert on prevention of and response to sexual harassment and sexual violence to be part of a working group that will provide advice to education ministers on university governance, and I'm sure that matters of the survey will be considered. Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 55 14:27 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Given that later this year Australians will have the opportunity to vote 'yes' to a Voice which will finally recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in our Constitution and pay respect to 65,000 years of culture and tradition and will help us listen to advice from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, can the minister explain to the Senate how constitutional recognition through a Voice will make a practical difference and improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people? 14:27 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you to Senator Smith. She's an outstanding advocate on these issues in South Australia and more broadly for her state. The question goes to the heart of what the Voice is about: recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in our Constitution and respecting 65,000 years of culture and tradition. It's about listening to advice from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people about matters that affect their lives so governments can make better decisions, and about making practical progress in Indigenous health, education, employment and housing so people can have a better life. That's what the Voice is about. We all know that governments have spent billions trying to deal with these issues. Many of us have been in this chamber for many years and have made contributions on the Closing the Gap statements. The extent of the task before the nation is clear. We have not achieved the results we all want. The gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians is not closing. We know there are enormous challenges facing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people: life expectancy eight years shorter than for non-Indigenous Australians, worse rates of suicide, worse rates of disease, worse rates of infant mortality, and fewer opportunities for education and training. The current approach is broken, and the Voice is our best chance to fix that. Voting 'no' means nothing will change, and it means accepting that we can't do better. I don't think Australians accept that, which is why those opposite keep trying to change the conversation. They keep trying to change the conversation from what the Voice will do, to other matters. The fact is the Voice is a vehicle to deliver real improvements for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in health, life expectancy, education and employment and housing. What we know is that, when governments listen to people about issues that affect them, they make better decisions, they get better results and they get better value for money. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Marielle Smith, first supplementary? 14:29 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Thank you, Minister, for that response. While we know that the concept for the Voice didn't come from politicians, although the parliament would benefit from its wisdom and advice, can the minister reminds the Senate how the Voice was conceived and driven by Indigenous Australian communities seeking improvements in the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders that will benefit all Australians? 14:30 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator Smith is right. The call for constitutional recognition through a voice didn't come from politicians. Indigenous Australians have asked us to help make a practical change and to create a better future for all Australians. In 2017, after many years of work and countless conversations in every part of the country, nearly 250 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders and elders called for a voice. It was an invitation to help make a practical change to their lives and to create better opportunities for future generations, and it is backed by 80 per cent, eight out of 10, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Aunty Pat Anderson, a respected Indigenous advocate and elder, says this about the Voice: When you involve people, you make better decisions and the money you spend goes where it's needed most: to the people on the ground. That is what a 'yes' vote will do. It will give people a say on issues that affect them and make a practical difference that improves lives. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Marielle Smith, second supplementary? 14:31 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Thank you, Minister, and thank you for going to practical benefits of the Voice. Perhaps you can also outline to the Senate, remind us all here, why it is that things need to change. 14:31 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia As I said earlier, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, Indigenous Australians, face worse life expectancy, worse results in education and employment, worse outcomes in health and so much more. Regrettably, there are too many in this debate who are prepared to look to their own political interests rather than the interests of the nation. I remind the Senate of what I spoke about yesterday, which was Mr Coorey being told by a colleague—maybe one of those opposite, or certainly a colleague of those opposite: 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. I know those opposite might not like that, but I think what it demonstrates is, yet again, their habit of putting politics over people. That is the approach we remember from the Morrison-Dutton government, and we see that now. Uluru Statement from the Heart 56 14:32 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. I refer to a speech by Uluru statement co-author and Referendum Council member Megan Davis when she delivered the Henry Parkes oration in 2018. She said: The Uluru Statement from the Heart isn't just the first one-page statement; it's actually a very lengthy document … The Prime Minister made a statement in the other place yesterday in which he said that leaders at Uluru had come with a statement that fits on an A4 page. When is the Prime Minister going to be truthful with the Australian people and admit that the Uluru statement is much longer than he claimed yesterday? 14:33 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator Hanson, I make a few points. First, Ms Davis has made a statement. There's been a lot of news this week that the Uluru statement is 26 pages long, but it's one page. That's the statement. That is what we issued to the Australian people. I can show you the Uluru statement here. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Order, Senator Canavan! Order! The minister needs to be heard in silence. Senator WONG 00AOU It is, I think, a great sadness to many people to see the alternative government denigrating the statement that has been given by First Nations peoples to the people of Australia. But, Senator Hanson, this is the Uluru statement, and it does fit on an A4 page. I disagree with your position on this, and I appreciate that we have a different view, but I think we should at least ensure that we are clear about why we have a different view. With respect, you and others don't have a different view because of the length of the statement; you have a different view because, fundamentally, you don't think that we should have a voice. We disagree. In fact, I think many of those opposite disagree. There are those opposite who do support a voice and there are those opposite, including in this chamber, who support a legislated voice and have done so publicly. I acknowledge that. There appear to be those on your side who don't even support that. So the difference between those in this chamber is that there are some that don't support any voice. As I said, Senator Hanson, I disagree with you, but that's your right. There are some who support a legislated voice but are going all out to stop a constitutional voice. That's what they're doing. There are those of us who think that, given all that's happened in this country and the extent of Indigenous disadvantage, we should ensure that our First Nations peoples are recognised in our Constitution and are able to have a constitutional right to a voice to give advice. That's all. The Voice does not call for a determination of policy. (Time expired) Senator Hughes 273828 I know what they will be doing; they will be rent-seeking. Senator Watt 245759 President, on a point of order. Senator Hughes made a highly objectionable remark across the chamber and I would ask her to withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 I wasn't aware of the remark. I invite Senator Hughes, if she believes she has been unparliamentary, to withdraw her statement. I'm moving on now to Senator Hanson and her first supplementary. 14:36 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Senator Wong, I think you have given a lot of misinformation and disinformation. I have the Uluru statement in full here—26 pages. It's document 14 that was supplied under the FOI request. I also have the final report of the Referendum Council here that states the Uluru statement in it. That's for you to view. I also have here Professor Megan Davis's comments and her statement. Professor Davis claimed she had been referring to the Referendum Council report published in 2017, page 16— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind all senators that, when senators are asking questions, they have the right to be heard in silence. 14:37 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Perhaps the best articulation of a response is from Chris Kenny. He said: 'I dare to say what senior coalition MPs have told me to my face, and that is that defeating the Voice referendum was their way to hurt Albanese and turn their fortunes around. I'll focus on the furphies being put around by the no case. One of them is this claim that the Uluru Statement from the Heart is 26 pages long— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, I acknowledge you are on your feet. I haven't called you yet. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe and Senator Whish-Wilson, I am aware of those interjections. They are to cease. Senator Hanson on a point of order? Senator Hanson BK6 Thank you, Madam President. I can't concentrate on the answer when I have a debate going on here. The PRESIDENT 112096 As you just heard, Senator Hanson, I well and truly called them to order. Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU I am happy to start again if the senator wishes, but I was referring to Chris Kenny's response to this. He referred to 'furphies', including that the Uluru statement is 26 pages long. He says: 'This is simply untrue. They are not part of that Uluru statement. The Referendum Council six years ago took these background papers and published them in a report. They published background material for the Uluru Statement from the Heart. In fact, the paragraph introducing these pages they call a synthesis of records of meetings of the dialogue. This synthesis is called "Our story", which happens to be the heading of the first page after the one-page Uluru statement. But we have been distracted into this discussion. This is a clear invitation from— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, a second supplementary? 14:38 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland It showed that sections of the report are identical to documents released by the government's very own National Indigenous Australians Agency following a freedom-of-information request. In a clarifying statement to the person who made the request the agency confirmed that 26 pages of the documents released represented the full Uluru Statement from the Heart. Why are you and the Prime Minister lying to the Australian people about the full Uluru statement? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, I ask you to withdraw that and reframe the assertion that you made around Senator Wong and the Prime Minister. Senator HANSON BK6 I will withdraw that. Why are you and the Prime Minister giving the people— The PRESIDENT 112096 That's time, Senator, but Senator Wong— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, it's not your role to argue back at me, but please finish your question. Senator HANSON BK6 Okay, so I will refrain from saying that word. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. Senator HANSON BK6 I will say: why are you and the Prime Minister giving people misinformation and disinformation with regard to the full Uluru statement? What are you hiding? 14:40 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia There is lot of misinformation and disinformation, and it is not coming from the government. I refer you to the letter from the NIAA which says this to Senator Nampijinpa Price: 'I'm writing to respond to your recent statements regarding the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The Uluru Statement from the Heart is one page signed by the delegates of the National Convention in 2017. The authors of the Uluru Statement from the Heart have confirmed this.' Senator Thorpe 280304 Not me! The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Thorpe, that was incredibly disorderly. I would ask you to refrain from interjecting. Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU The additional pages contained in document 14 of the FOI—FOI/2223/016—are background and excerpts drawn from regional dialogues. I think that makes it clear and, subject to the usual tabling, I table this letter. Uluru Statement from the Heart 58 14:41 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia My question is also to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong, following on, in fact, from Senator Hanson's question. Minister, yesterday in question time the Prime Minister said— Government senators interjecting— The 10000 Senator Cash, please resume your seat. I appreciate these are difficult questions and difficult answers and I want senators to be respectful to the person asking the question and to the person answering the question. That means no interjections and no calling out. Senator Cash, I invite you to start again. Senator CASH I0M Thank you. As I said, my question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Minister, yesterday in question time the Prime Minister said: That is the Uluru Statement from the Heart on an A4 bit of paper. That is it. He then held up a single sheet of paper and called any suggestion that the Uluru statement was a longer document a 'conspiracy theory and nonsense'. But in 2018 at the Henry Parkes oration Professor Megan Davis said: The Uluru Statement from the Heart isn't just the first one-page statement; it's actually a very lengthy document of about 18 to 20 pages, and a very powerful part of this document reflects what happened in the dialogues. Does the government consider Professor Davis to be a conspiracy theorist? If not, will the Prime Minister apologise for misleading the parliament and correct the record? 14:43 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I believe this is the same question in substance as the question from Senator Hanson, and I refer the senator to my answer to Senator Hanson. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, first supplementary? 14:43 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Minister, how many pages are in the Uluru Statement from the Heart? The PRESIDENT 112096 Just a moment, Minister. Senator Watt, I have called the chamber to order. I have asked senators not to interject. That includes you. 14:43 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia One. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, second supplementary? 14:43 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I seek leave to table the full Uluru Statement from the Heart to ensure that the Australian Senate knows what is in it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Is leave granted? Senator Wong 00AOU Subject to the usual courtesies, we will look at it first. I would say it is incorrect to call it that. That is the FOI document, which is already public, and I have responded to this already. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber! Senator Cash, subject to the usual courtesies, which I think is distribution to the whips. Senator CASH I0M I'd like to place it on the record that the statement was circulated by the whips prior to question time. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Cash. Second supplementary? Senator CASH I0M All Australians will actually see what and how many pages the full Uluru Statement from the Heart is. Minister, I say this to you: if we can't even trust you to tell the Australian people how many pages are actually in the full Uluru Statement from the Heart, how can Australians have any faith in what you tell them about the Voice? 14:45 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I, again, refer to my answer to Senator Hanson. And I would, again, say to all in here that I think Mr Kenny had it right. He said, 'Senior coalition members had told me to my face that defeating the Voice referendum was their way to hurt Albanese and turn their fortunes around.' … I really focused on the furphies being put around by the 'no' case, and one of them is this claim that the Uluru Statement from the Heart is 26 pages long. … … … This is simply untrue— It says something, I think, when a shadow minister who supports a legislated voice—and if she doesn't, I'd invite her to stand up and indicate that—is focusing on this furphy in order to oppose a constitutional voice. One can ask: why? It comes back to politics. (Time expired) First Nations Australians: Cultural Heritage 59 14:46 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, Minister Wong. You have previously stated that it is undertaking thorough consultation on First Nations heritage reforms with First Nations communities and organisations which will determine the time line of these reforms. Yet your own records show that you have not consulted with the First Nations heritage alliance since the end of last year and other First Nations stakeholders since February. My question is: how are you undertaking extensive and thorough consultation when you are not actually consulting at all? 14:46 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I assume the 'you' in that is the minister I'm representing or the government. Obviously, no, I don't have responsibility for the cultural heritage reforms, but I think your question is clear. The information I have—and I might have given you this answer previously—is that we committed to reforming national heritage protection laws. We committed to consultation with all parties, including the First Nations Heritage Protection Alliance. In relation to details about meetings, senators put something to me. I don't have any information on that, but I would make the point—and obviously there have been quite a few questions about this last week from the opposition, which came from a different perspective—that this was a process that was actually begun by the opposition when in government. In fact, the now Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Ms Ley, was the minister who commissioned the paper and contacted the First Nations heritage alliance to provide advice on the options canvassed in the paper. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, first supplementary? 14:48 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Are we waiting for the EPBC reforms to be completed before you'll actually touch the heritage protection reforms—or the minister that you're representing? 14:48 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia My recollection is that the EPBC reforms are further down the path in terms of the consultation and policy process, but that is only a recollection, and I'll certainly get you some further information about that. We went to the election with a commitment in relation to the EPBC. The process that I've outlined was the consultation process that Ms Ley started. They are separate processes, and obviously we had an election commitment in relation to the EPBC Act, which I've no doubt Ms Plibersek is ensuring she is working on. In terms of how the government would envisage those two reform processes or consultation processes interacting, let me ask if Ms Plibersek's office can provide you with any further information. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, second supplementary? 14:49 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Thank you, Minister, for that response. A hundred and eighty-one countries have signed onto the UN Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. When will Australia sign the convention? 14:49 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I think we all understand—and particularly as I travel around the world it's clear to me—that a multilateral system to protect the environment, to protect heritage, is becoming even more required. I will get some advice from the relevant minister about Australia's approach to that convention. We do think that the multilateral system is a very important part of maintaining rules and norms, along with, frankly, procedures or processes for settling disputes. We are active in many international fora, and there are many international conventions and arrangements that Australia is party to. Under this government, we are putting significant resources into the multilateral system because we think it is of import. On the specific issue of the convention you raised, Senator, I don't have any further information on that, and I will come back to you.(Time expired) Trade with China 60 14:49 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Watt. Late last week we heard the good news of China lifting its trade barriers in relation to barley. However, I note several news articles in recent days suggesting that a number of barley exporters remain locked out from the Chinese market. Can the minister please provide an update on the status of these exporters? 14:51 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland You're right, Senator Sterle: another question on agriculture from the Labor Party, the only party that asks questions or shows an interest in agriculture in this chamber. Today, I have good news for Aussie farmers, especially in Western Australia, Victoria and South Australia. The Albanese government is committed to ensuring Australian farmers, processors and exporters have the best possible access to international markets. Senator Pratt, as you alluded to, there have been positive developments in recent weeks in stabilising our relationship with China, and that has seen the removal of trade impediments in horticulture, cotton and timber and of course last week's removal of tariffs from Australian barley. The Albanese government's calm persistence and sensible dialogue have expedited an outcome for Australian barley producers with the removal of tariff barriers. I have seen that reporting that you referred to, Senator Pratt, about some key grains exporters still not having access to the Chinese market, so it gives me great pleasure today to provide the Senate with an update. Earlier today, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry received formal notification from the Chinese customs agency that CBH grain and Emerald Grain Australia would be reinstated as registered exporters of barley to China. This, as I say, is great news for Australian farmers and the whole grain supply chain. The Albanese government certainly welcomes this decision. The removal of the suspensions for these two exporters was the result of ongoing technical discussions between our two countries and follows last week's decision to remove the duties applied to Australian barley. I caught up with representatives from CBH, as I know many people did, last night at the Showcase WA function here in Parliament House. I know that Rob Dickie and Brianna Peake join us here in the gallery this afternoon. There are good days and bad days for Australian agriculture, and today is a good day. Both companies will be able to recommence trade with their Chinese customers from today. I'd like to acknowledge the advocacy of Senators Wong and Farrell over a long time, as well as the many officials and industries who have helped along. Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pratt, first supplementary? 14:53 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I thank the minister for that good news. Given this good news, what will the benefit be for barley farmers and exporters, particularly in my home state of Western Australia? 14:53 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland We know that the Liberals and Nationals are laughing on the inside and happy on the inside. They can't express their real happiness about good news for Australian agriculture, so they've got to bottle it up inside and feel a little bit cheerful. They're having a little chuckle to themselves about how good it is to have a Labor government back in charge, running agriculture policy in this country. Across Australia, one in four jobs relies on trade, so access to international markets is essential for the profitability of Australia's export focused— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, silence, thank you. Senator WATT 245759 Prior to the imposition of the antidumping and countervailing duties, China was Australia's largest barley export market at nearly $1 billion per year. But since the imposition of tariffs in 2020, which of course occurred under a coalition government, trade in barley with China has effectively ceased. Australian barley is known in China for being high quality and competitively priced, and the removal of duties allows for the re-establishment of these mutually beneficial, long-held relationships between the Australian barley industry and Chinese users. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pratt? 14:55 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Clearly the Albanese government is working hard to support farmers, processors and exporters to gain a wider market, to grow their market share around the world. While these developments on barley are great, I note there are still some industries which face trade impediments with China. What are we doing in the Albanese government to assist in these matters? 14:55 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you again, Senator Pratt, for your interest in these issues. While these developments on barley are certainly very positive signs, there is more work to be done to remove the trade barriers that were imposed a couple of years ago by China on Australian wine, beef and lobster. I know this is an issue that Ministers Wong and Farrell have repeatedly raised with their Chinese counterparts, as did I when I met with the Chinese agriculture minister in Rome a few weeks ago. Our government truly believes it is in both countries' interest to see these impediments removed, just as we have seen with barley. In all of the discussions between our government and our counterparts in China, we've always made clear that we see wine and these other impediments as being just as urgent as barley. Our position has always been that we'd much prefer to see these matters resolved through dialogue and negotiation, rather than having to undertake WTO cases. That's the approach that's worked in relation to barley, and we're very hopeful that we'll come to a similar arrangement in relation to wine. The Albanese government is stabilising our relationship with our major trading partner, and that is great news for Aussie farmers. Honourable senators interjecting— Aviation Industry 61 14:56 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I know—agriculture! My question is to the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Senator Farrell. Australian consumers are paying high prices for airfares and would benefit from increased competition. The transport minister has rejected Qatar Airways' request for an additional 21 international flights a week. Minister, given the impact additional international carrier competition can have in lowering airfares for Australian passengers, increasing tourism to Australia and delivering lower freight costs, what advice did you provide to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government regarding the Qatar Airways decision, and what discussions or meetings did you, Minister Catherine King or the Prime Minister have with our domestic airlines prior to the government making this decision? 14:57 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator McKenzie for her question. I'm pleased to say that bit by bit we are turning the situation around from the situation we inherited from the former government, where the level of seats on aeroplanes coming to Australia was very low and the cost was very high. We haven't entirely resolved that issue in the time that we've been in government, but, bit by bit, we are working towards returning the situation to what it was pre the pandemic. There are some countries where we are, in fact, getting more people into Australia than— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie? Senator McKenzie 207825 The minister has yet to go anywhere near the Qatar Airways decision and, indeed, the advice he gave to the responsible minister in his capacity as trade and tourism minister. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator McKenzie. I draw the minister's attention to your question. Senator FARRELL I0N Thank you, President, and thanks, Senator McKenzie, for the point of order. The Australian government considers, of course, a range of factors when determining whether an expansion of bilateral air rights is in the national interest. The government at this time has decided not to approve the Qatar Civil Aviation Authority's request for additional services. International aviation helps facilitate Australia's tourism, trade and international education sectors and supports our global, national and regional economic interests and social connectivity. We have seen continued growth in Australian domestic aviation in the last year as the sector recovers from the COVID-19— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator Birmingham? Senator Birmingham H6X Madam President, I have a point of order on the question of direct relevance. The minister has been broadly relevant to the question asked by Senator McKenzie, but the question went specifically to the advice, the reasons and the minister's own engagement in relation to the decision. He has not touched on any of those areas of direct relevance to the question asked by Senator McKenzie. The PRESIDENT 112096 I draw the minister's attention to the latter part of Senator McKenzie's question. Senator FARRELL I0N We've seen strong recovery in international passenger traffic to and from Australia, which was at 21.351 million— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 I invite you to ask your first supplementary question, Senator McKenzie. 15:00 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria It is reported that the increased flights could have added around 7,000 seats per week to Australia, which would be great for tourism—your own portfolio, if you need a reminder. The extra freight capacity would also be great for our exporters and farmers. However, the responsible minister has failed to provide justification for the decision. Minister, what is the real reason your government has rejected the Qatar Airways request and so denied the additional capacity to our trade, tourism and hospitality sectors? 15:01 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Senator McKenzie, I know exactly what my portfolios are and I've been working in each and every one of them every single day for the last— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator McKenzie? Senator McKenzie 207825 I'm getting in early, Madam President—direct relevance. He blathered on on my last question and didn't go anywhere near his own engagement on this topic. I'm not going to wait another minute for him to read me his role description. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, I ask you to withdraw that comment please. Senator McKenzie 207825 It's mean, but true. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, it's not okay to argue with me. I'm asking you to withdraw that part of your point of order and then I'll go to the second part of your point of order. Senator McKenzie 207825 I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. The minister was being relevant to a part of your question. You did refer to his portfolio. I remind the minister of the rest of your question. I remind all senators that, if you put a preamble or a personal comment in your question, the minister is entitled to make reference to it. Minister Farrell, I draw you to the latter part of Senator McKenzie's question. Senator FARRELL I0N Each and every day we in government work to resolve the problems that we were left by the inaction of the previous government, which you were a part of, Senator McKenzie. We don't publicly discuss the discussions we've had with other countries or organisations. We simply don't do that, and when you were in government you didn't do that either. Only a few weeks ago I was in Ho Chi Minh City with Vietjet launching the first flight— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, a second supplementary? An opposition senator interjecting— 15:03 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Yes, absolutely—the nonanswers, the lack of detail, the cloak of secrecy and the cover-up for certain people continues. Minister, isn't the real reason the government refused the Qatar Airways application because of pressure from a major domestic carrier? Was Minister King again overruled by the real infrastructure and transport minister, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese? Senator Wong 00AOU I raise a point of order about the question. I ought to have raised it, but with the interjections I couldn't hear the first supplementary. I think the senator is asking this minister in his primary portfolio capacity. I think asking this minister the reasons for a decision of another minister is not in order, because it is not a matter in his portfolio. My recollection is the senator did not ask the minister in his representing capacity, so I will just make that point but I don't object to the question. I ought have raised this in the first supplementary. The PRESIDENT 112096 Just for clarity, I understood Senator McKenzie was asking about Senator Farrell's tourism and trade role. If I got that wrong, I will apologise. Senator Birmingham, I will go to you. Senator Birmingham H6X On the point of order, indeed, I am assuming the question was asked in relation to the trade and tourism portfolio as well. President, it would be a very narrow ruling to suggest that a minister with a portfolio such as trade and tourism that clearly is directly impacted by decisions of government in relation to aviation access to Australia cannot be asked questions about those decisions of government, the impacts of those decisions or the rationale for those decisions of government, particularly when they are cabinet decisions, ultimately, for which all ministers are accountable. The PRESIDENT 112096 I would agree with your analysis, Senator Birmingham, but Senator McKenzie did ask about Minister King as well in her question and that is the point that, I believe, Senator Wong was raising. But I will seek the advice of the Clerk—yes, he is nodding his head. Sorry, we have allowed the question. I will direct the minister to Senator McKenzie's question and to answer it within his trade and tourism portfolio. Minister. 15:06 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I'm very happy to answer the questions, as I am all questions. I'm very happy to answer all of the questions at any time which the opposition would like to ask me. But, I have to say, it is a bit rich that you in particular are raising issues of cover-ups, raising issues of government when we still have not had answers about your role in the sports rorts. The PRESIDENT 112096 Before I come to Senator McKenzie, I remind Minister Farrell that he will need to direct his answers to me. Senator McKenzie? Senator McKenzie 207825 I ask Senator Farrell to withdraw. He is reflecting on a senator. The PRESIDENT 112096 I don't believe there was a reflection there. Senator McKenzie 207825 Madam President, can I ask you to look at the rulings of previous President Ryan on this matter. The PRESIDENT 112096 I absolutely will, Senator McKenzie. Sorry, I may have missed that; there was quite a lot of interjections. I will invite the minister to withdraw. Senator FARRELL I0N I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister. I will draw your attention to Senator McKenzie's question and let's get on with that. Senator FARRELL I0N No. Senator Wong 00AOU I ask that further questions be placed on notice. BUDGET 63 BUDGET Consideration by Estimates Committees 63 15:08 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Pursuant to standing order 74(5) and at the request of Senators Askew, Brockman, Davey, Hughes, McGrath, Rennick, Reynolds and Ruston, I seek an explanation from the Minister representing the Minister for Government Services as to why all 209 questions on notice from coalition senators asked of Services Australia during the 2023-24 budget estimates hearings remain unanswered. 15:09 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia It is a bold opposition who complains about the timeliness of answers to questions on notice. Those opposite had a shocking track record of responding to questions on notice when they were in government. The Liberals and the Nationals left almost 1,000 unanswered questions sitting on the Notice Paper when they were voted out of office, some dating back to October 2019. In any event, the opposition will be pleased to learn that the minister's office instructed Services Australia to lodge answers to questions on notice from the most recent round of Senate estimates with the secretariat of the community affairs committee this afternoon. 15:10 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the minister's failure to provide either answers or an explanation. I note the explanation doesn't give clarity as to whether all answers have been provided, and we look forward with interest to reviewing whether that is the case. It seems to set a brand-new approach or precedent to what is necessary to extract answers from the government, and I guess it is one the opposition will have to pursue now: when answers are overdue, will have to advise that we are going to ask questions about that and see whether that prompts the government to actually answer their questions. It was quite remarkable to see that not just the 209 questions from coalition senators had gone unanswered by Services Australia; indeed, every single one of the 275 questions taken on notice by Services Australia had been unanswered prior to the question being asked of the minister's office just prior to question time—every single one of the 275. There were 209 from the coalition: 133 from Senator Askew; seven from Senator Brockman; two from Senator Davey; 40 from Senator Hume; three from Senator McGrath; three from Senator Rennick; 17 from Senator Reynolds; and four from Senator Ruston. All of them had gone unanswered. And that was not just for a day or two; the due date for these answers to budget estimates questions was 14 July. So it's not like we're asking the question on the first available sitting day after the due date; it is some 26 days that these questions had been overdue, some 26 days in which these answers had not been provided. I am willing to take a bet that it is not Services Australia's fault. In fact, the mere matter that answers could be provided at the drop of a hat—in the space of the last hour—tells me that Services Australia had already done the answers. They had already prepared the answers. Where do you think those answers might have been sitting for the last 26 days or even maybe the last two months? Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Some blue carpet indeed, Senator Brockman, but I suspect a particular piece of blue carpet, a particular piece of blue carpet occupied by none other than Mr Shorten—that repeat offender of Senate disregard, Minister Bill Shorten. It is not the first occasion that this Senate has had cause to take note of Mr Shorten's handling of answers to questions—or, in this case, the lack of answers to questions that have been provided. We have previously seen Mr Shorten provide the most outrageous of answers on the most sensitive of topics, where he is quite happy to politicise answers in relation to sensitive questions about the operation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, quite happy to provide partisan, political answers to very straight, factual questions on an important area of national public policy. Do you know what happened the last time this Senate dared to question Mr Shorten and the way he and his portfolio and office go about handling answers? His response was that we should take a teaspoon of cement and harden up. That's the degree of respect shown by Mr Shorten and his ministerial office, by that Albanese government minister—as much as he doesn't like being part of the Albanese government and as much as he is very unhappy with the phrase 'Albanese government'! But Mr Shorten is showing complete disregard and contempt for the operations of the Senate. As I said before, it's not just the 209 coalition questions that had been unanswered. There were 49 questions asked by Senator Rice that were unanswered, two questions asked by Senator Faruqi that were unanswered and one question asked by Senator Thorpe that was unanswered—all of them overdue. You know what is even more remarkable? There are two answers to questions from Senator Urquhart overdue. And Senator Pratt—I'm pleased you're here, Senator Pratt—has 12 questions that Mr Shorten hasn't bothered to answer yet. He's not even happy to answer questions from his own Labor senators in a respectful or timely way. He's not even happy to answer what are presumably the dixers— Senator O'Sullivan 283585 No wonder he's not their leader! Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X 'No wonder he's not their leader,' I hear from the back! No wonder he finds himself a member of the Albanese government rather than of a Shorten government, if this is the contempt shown to the Senate, the opposition, the crossbench and even his own senators. These are not trivial areas of government policy. Services Australia is, as shadow minister Fletcher has pointed out, one of the largest Commonwealth agencies. Each year it's responsible for delivering billions of dollars worth of vital services and payments to some of the most vulnerable Australians. The questions we pursue are firmly in the public interest, just as the questions we've asked previously in relation to the National Disability Insurance Scheme are in the public interest. They're seeking to hold the government to account. They're seeking to ensure that government agencies—those operating within Mr Shorten's portfolio—are accountable, are transparent and are living up to the types of things the Labor Party said they would deliver but have not delivered. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X I hear Senator Ciccone wanting to talk about when we were in government. Senator Gallagher ING More than 1,000! Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Senator Gallagher, I'm happy to take your claim of 'more than 1,000'. I'm standing here talking about one single government agency with 275 alone. Senator Gallagher ING There are more questions asked now! Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Oh, bring out the violin strings—there are more questions asked nowadays! I remember saying that, Senator Gallagher, and you weren't at all sympathetic then. Indeed, you said on Monday, in relation to a question from Senator Nampijinpa Price, 'We're doing the best we can.' How is it 'the best you can do' for no answers to have been provided by Minister Shorten and Services Australia? How is it 'the best you can do' for them to be sitting on a desk somewhere when, within the space of 60 minutes, they can suddenly miraculously be turned around and provided to the committee secretariat and tabled but couldn't be provided beforehand? That doesn't sound like 'the best you can do'. That sounds like deliberate evasion, deliberate trickiness and deliberately trying to hide information from the Senate in relation to how these matters are handled. They're pretty straightforward questions. Senator Askew is asking about compliance with committee directions around the return of questions on notice—indeed, asking about time lines for providing those return of questions. We've got questions that have been unanswered about the provision of answers to questions! You'd have thought that they'd be looking to provide those pretty quickly. Senator Ruston is asking questions about those on the BasicsCard—a matter of intense debate and scrutiny in this place, and a matter where I would have thought the government, in seeking to defend the outrageous policy reforms it's undertaken during this time, would have been eager to make sure it provided answers to some of those questions. Senator Pratt, you asked a perfectly reasonable question: 'Are there limitations of the number of Centrepay payments an authorised organisation can be eligible to receive?' I would have thought it's perfectly reasonable for you to ask that question, and perfectly reasonable for an answer to be provided. Remarkably, I am informed—it wasn't clear from Senator Farrell's answer before—by those who have been able to check whilst I've been speaking that they've all managed to be tabled—all of them! Senator McGrath 217241 It's a miracle! Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Either, indeed, a miracle, Senator McGrath, happened in Services Australia, or perhaps it was artificial intelligence. Perhaps an hour ago they fed all of those unanswered questions into ChatGPT, and within the space of an hour it spat out all these answers, and we have a whole lot of robotic artificial answers that we will now work our way through. Or perhaps it's my theory that, instead, these answers have languished in Minister Shorten's office from where they have refused to actually provide them to the Senate. They have refused to give those answers to the Senate in a timely way. It is actually more outrageous in many ways to know that they were all there and they were already to go, but not a single one of them had been provided. Why is it more outrageous to know that? Because parliament is in session this week, and it was in session last week, too. Have these answers been sitting there for the last two weeks and yet weren't provided to the parliament? I'm willing to take a gamble that the answers were probably overwhelmingly provided more than 26 days ago because I would bet that Services Australia ensured that they met the deadline and they provided them to the minister, and it is the minister's office that has held them up. And why would the minister's office seek to hold them up? To avoid scrutiny in the parliament and to ensure that it'll be only after we're all out of here tomorrow that the answers are provided. That, I am sure, is the reason why these answers have sat around in a minister's office for so long so that they can avoid scrutiny. We'll have to see whether these answers actually address the questions, whether they are ChatGPT generated and whether, of course, they didn't show the same degree of contempt and Mr Shorten has taken the last few weeks for his office to rewrite them, to put in the type of partisan political commentary that we saw previously in his answers to questions in relation to the NDIS. Those opposite have sought to interject along the way and challenge the opposition in relation to our track record. And challenge they may, challenge they can. But they also set some pretty lofty standards themselves when they were in opposition and attacking the then government. Senator Watt argued that it was not negotiable and should not be negotiable to comply with the standing orders and properly answer questions on notice. That was the standard set by Minister Watt in this place. Indeed, what we have seen is a government that thinks timing of answers to questions on notice is negotiable. Minister Shorten, in particular, is someone who seems to think it is negotiable as to their timing, their nature and whether or not they are answered. Senator Ayres argued previously for a change in approach. He was particularly critical in relation to a refusal to provide timely responses to questions on notice—timely responses. That is all that we are asking for right now. At this time we're asking for timely responses, responsible responses and relevant responses to questions that are asked. I welcome the fact that the opposition's intervention on this matter has seen these answers to questions on notice tabled today. It is regrettable that it has taken this type of intervention and this use of the Senate's time to get the government to act. But, of course, that is what we will do if that is what it takes to get the answers and to get those answers in a timely way. I hope that, when we scrutinise these answers, they meet the types of standards the government promised prior to the last election, that they are actually answers and not simply political swipes, that they do address the questions that had been asked and that they do lend themselves to the proper scrutiny and functions of the Senate and this parliament. But, based on the track record of Mr Shorten to date, the games he's played in the content of previous answers and the games that have been played in relation to not providing these answers even though they have been sitting in his office, thereby delaying the provision of them until after the parliament has essentially risen for a number of weeks, I am guessing that we will find there are many, many holes in these answers as well. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 As I am informed by the Clerk and you, Senator Birmingham, that the answers have been tabled, I must put the question. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to. Question agreed to. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 65 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 65 15:24 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today. We did have a lengthy conversation in question time today about the rumoured goings-on at Labor's national conference, which will be held next week. I'm sure it thrills the people of Australia when we come into this place and talk about our parties' national conferences. But I do want to congratulate the national Labor Party for having their conference next week. That's not something that is currently afforded to the Tasmanian division of the Labor Party, so a really big clap for federal Labor, who will all be congregating somewhere next week—I think it might be in Queensland somewhere—and having a chat about the policy issues that are important to them. That's something that my Tasmanian Labor colleagues are not currently able to do. That's a bit of a sad reflection on the state of affairs in Tasmania. But, like I said, we did reflect on some of the policy motions that are going to be discussed at the Labor conference next week and, in particular, some of the foreign policy motions that are going to be raised at the conference. I think that it is incredibly relevant that we are debating these issues here today because I would like to wind the clock back slightly more than 12 months to when, during the election campaign last year, the now Prime Minister and then opposition leader, Mr Anthony Albanese, said that national security is above politics. He said that his government would be a government that delivers on its commitments and brings our country together as a key element of ensuring a stronger and safer Australia. It's really important to reflect on this quote, because now it is deeply troubling to hear media reports that around 40 branches of the Labor Party are moving to oppose the AUKUS agreement. The Prime Minister said that national security is above politics, but now we hear that at this national conference next week—and, like I said, I think it's good that the Labor Party can have a conference—there will be members within the party that wish to oppose the AUKUS agreement. It is incredibly concerning that so many within the Labor Party are opposed to this alliance, which is committed to strengthening the national security of this country. The Prime Minister is failing even to bring his own party together to support AUKUS, our most important national security strategy in decades. I think the Prime Minister needs to clarify that his party and, importantly, his government remain committed to AUKUS, and he needs to ensure that the current disunity ahead of the national conference next week doesn't jeopardise our national security and, particularly, the AUKUS agreement. Why is the AUKUS agreement so important? The government is obligated to protect the people of Australia, and the people of Australia rightly expect that any Australian government, whether Labor or coalition, will do everything in its power to protect our people, our territory and our sovereignty. The AUKUS alliance has been negotiated and designed to provide Australia with the defence capabilities that we need to fulfil that obligation. We, on this side of the chamber, are very proud of the commitment that our government made to AUKUS. That's because we don't know what the future may hold; we don't have the ability to predict the future. But one thing is for certain: we are living in uncertain times. Prior to February 2022, no-one would have predicted war on the European continent. But here we are, a year and a half on from Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, and that particular conflict shows no sign of ending any time soon. And this war has had an absolutely devastating impact on the people of Ukraine. Like I said, we're living in uncertain times and it is of vital importance that we, as Australia, are doing everything that we can to ensure our national security. We know that AUKUS plays a very important part in that. Like I said, we, on this side of the chamber, know that AUKUS plays a very important part in that. That's why it is so disappointing that there is clearly an element within the Labor Party—I hope it's a fringe element—that wants to push the government next week to oppose the AUKUS deal. I think that is incredibly disappointing. It is time for the Prime Minister to make a strong statement and say that the AUKUS deal is not going to be under threat—not after the national conference of Labor next week, not ever. 15:30 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I am absolutely delighted with the fascination with the great tradition of the Australian Labor Party to actually undertake debate and—God forbid!—even do it in public, where the people of Australia whom we seek to represent might even get a bit of an indication of the things that we are thinking about, that we are talking about, that we are deciding about, that we are agreeing about and that we are representing our communities about. It's funny that it's the Liberal Party who seem to have a very big problem with that reality. Political parties that are as well established and function as soundly as the Labor Party have in place processes that allow different views to be put forward. Compare and contrast with the Greens political party, named after a colour, as my colleague Senator Watt said yesterday. Down the far end there, they call for transparency all the time, but they hide everything they do. The Labor Party is a public party. Anybody over 15, you can join us. If you want to be an observer, come and get an observer badge and be part of what's going on in Brisbane. If you want to be there to find out what's going on with AUKUS, start by reading the Prime Minister's comments, which could not be more accurate, clear and certain. Australia is committed to the technological sharing of the critical new energy resources that are needed to make sure we are strategically placed in our region to do our job to defend our country with those with whom we have alliances. AUKUS has captured the imagination of Australians. People in the Labor Party are Australians. It's captured their imagination. They have questions. They want to know. That's a good thing, the last time I looked. And of course there will be debate in that place, where many of those who have ended up in this place practised their skills of listening to the community, thinking about policy solutions and discussing matters of national importance to make sure that we bring forward a view that is representative of all Australians and is clearly in the national interest. I was involved with the National Policy Forum, a process that would be surprising to the Liberal Party. It has been going on for months and months, since the middle of last year—a wide-ranging consultation to get all these matters on the public record. Stay tuned, watch what happens at the conference and don't buy into the fear and alarm that are just the standard rhetoric of those opposite. I'm looking forward to conference in Brisbane. I'll be there and I'll be making a contribution, alongside all my colleagues from this place who attend, plus Australians from all around the country who care about politics who have decided Labor is the way in which the country is advanced. They'll be there with me too. But I don't want to lose the opportunity to make some remarks, in the minute and 25 seconds that remains to me, about the ridiculous question that came from Senator Cash today: 'Is it a one-page document? Is it a three-page document? Is it a seven-page document?' I've read it. I've read it here, to the parliament. It is a one-page document, and it talks about the children. First Nations people love their children, it says. I want to tell you about the powerful education I had on a beach in Elcho Island, from a young Aboriginal girl. She didn't ask me what I did. She came up to me and said hello and asked me: 'Who is your mother? Who is your sister? Who is your brother? Who is your father?' It was all about relationship. It was all about connection. She taught me something very powerful that day about First Nations people: they're connected to the land; they're connected to one another; they're connected to us. They deserve a place in our national founding document as modern Australia. And they deserve a voice. Those children deserve a voice. 15:35 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I'm a little bit disappointed that Senator O'Neill—through you, Deputy President—as the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Israel, didn't touch upon Labor's decision to— The DEPUTY 10000 Senator O'Neill has a point of order. Senator O'Neill 140651 The member is reflecting poorly on me and I just seek to advise him that I will be participating in the urgency debate and I will have plenty to say as the chair of the parliamentary friendship group of Israel. So don't be too disappointed; you only have to wait about another hour and a half, Senator. Senator Duniam 263418 What's the point of order? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Duniam, I'm not entertaining that. Senator McGrath, just be measured with your comments—and perhaps render an apology, given the explanation from Senator O'Neill. Senator McGRATH 217241 I withdraw. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 No, I wasn't asking you to withdraw. Senator McGRATH 217241 I'll withdraw. I'm not going to apologise; I withdraw. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Alright. Well, withdrawal's a higher— Senator McGRATH 217241 I have many things to apologise for, but not in this particular instance. But I withdraw, and I look forward to Senator O'Neill's contribution defending the right of Israel to exist. I want to speak about Israel and the West Bank. As someone who went to Israel last year, I saw there was a notable difference between how Israelis, whether they were Jewish or Arabic, operate. They live in a liberal democracy. Everyone is equal. But then you cross over the border into the West Bank, and that liberal democracy, that beautiful rainbow that we all live under, becomes this black cloud, because there is no democracy or freedom in the West Bank. Along with other members of the delegation, I spoke with locals in the West Bank, and I said: 'What would you like me to say to your leaders?' By the way, these are leaders who haven't had an election now for about 20 years, and even that would be offending the Trade Practices Act in terms of what an election is, in the West Bank, because it wasn't a real, free election. And they wouldn't tell me anything, because they were too scared to utter any words of praise or criticism towards the leaders in the West Bank. So I will strongly defend the right of Israel to exist—strongly defend the right of the only liberal democracy in the Middle East to exist—because we've got to go back to history. I'm currently about to finish, thank goodness, a brilliant book by Antony Beevor; it is called Russia:Revolution and Civil War, 1917-1921. I would encourage anyone who happens to be still listening through the wireless or on the TV to read this book, because it is a fascinating history of what happens when a government collapses and what those who do not have the interests of their people at heart—and I'm talking about the Bolsheviks—do to the human spirit. You can compare that to what happens in the West Bank, and in Gaza, where you've got leaders who do not have the interests of their people at heart because it is all about politics; it is all about power. You can compare that to Israel, which is such a boisterous democracy. I welcome the fact that the Labor Party are coming to Queensland. I would counsel them to perhaps be careful where they park their cars, because 55 cars a day are stolen in Queensland because we've got this crime wave happening under the state Labor government. I would counsel them in terms of their usage of electricity because power prices are going through the roof. And I would say to them that they're possibly paying extra money for short-term rentals because rents are going through the roof. So welcome to modern Queensland, where we've got a state Labor government who are disinterested in the victims of crime and those who are suffering because of Labor's mismanagement of the Queensland economy and the national economy. What also concerns me is that in the coming months we're going to have a referendum. We don't know the date, because that's apparently a state secret, although Noel Pearson likes to go around the place and say it's on 14 October. It's a state secret when this referendum is going to be held. Also, it's a state secret as to the details of the Voice. Labor just don't want us to know. They want Queenslanders to vote on something, but they don't want them to know the details. You know why? Because they know that the Voice is something that is going to hurt Australia. They know that if Australians found out the truth about the Voice, if they knew the truth about the Voice, they would not vote for it. That's why they're not telling us the information. The Labor Party are treating Queenslanders and Australians like mushrooms. They're keeping us in the dark, and they're loading us up with things that come out of the rear ends of cows, and it needs to stop. 15:40 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia It's interesting to hear those words coming out of Senator McGrath about not enough information being out there. Can I outline that there is information out there; you just fail to see it and accept it. Speaking of the Voice to Parliament—that was going to be my last point, but, you know what, we'll bring it forward—and speaking of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, it is 440 words, and if you haven't read it and fully understood it, I advise you and encourage you to please read it as you go to your office. It will encapsulate what exactly the delegates, the rank-and-file members, of the Labor Party, at our national conference, are also going to be discussing, along with other national policies and areas important to us all. Senator Chandler mentioned earlier that we don't know what the future holds, and I agree. At least there's one thing we agree on. We are indeed living in uncertain times, and that's exactly why we're highlighting the importance of an AUKUS agreement—because we understand, the Labor Party understands, the geopolitical importance that Australia has in our region. Enough about the internal quarrelling that we've seen from those opposite, constantly undermining one another. When it comes to their leadership, we saw what the former Prime Minister did, the former Prime Minister who secretly appointed himself to—how many ministries was that? Six? And what do you say to that? You turn around and ask questions about the integrity and transparency of the way we do things as the Labor Party. Going to our national conference next week, we are a democracy, and we take pride in that. We make sure that when there are debates to be held, when there is open discussion, we want to be a party that listens to every single member. This is an incredibly big investment—perhaps, as was mentioned earlier, the single biggest investment in our defence capability in history. It's a transformational moment for our nation, because this isn't just creating around 20,000 jobs over the next 30 years; it's ensuring the sovereignty and security of our nation and our people. I do want to reflect on and reiterate what Senator Wong said earlier: that it's about making sure we use all levers of national power, deterrence but also diplomacy, for a stable and prosperous region. If I may say so, that's absolutely slay. National security is above politics. We know how important it is, and that's exactly why we're going to have those discussions. We're going to have the consultation. Those opposite seem to be very interested in taking a leaf out of our book. Here's a little bit more inspiration if you really are interested and you're keen to keep tabs on what is going to happen in our national conference. We're definitely going to be talking about the importance of the Voice to Parliament. To everyone out there I say: please stop listening to the fearmongering of the 'no-alition', who keep saying no to every progressive policy that we bring to the table. This isn't about playing petty politics; this is about acknowledging and recognising the First Nations people of Australia who contribute to our identity. Their 60,000 years of history, culture and knowledge contribute to our identity as Australians and contribute to the fabric of our society. This is not an act of charity; this is an act of justice. So vote yes in the referendum later this year. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I ask that the clocks be set for three minutes. Then I understand One Nation will seek the call for two minutes. 15:45 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I'm glad I have three minutes because I don't know how I could possibly speak for five minutes about the Voice, because there's no detail about the Voice. We don't even know the date the referendum is going to be held. You would think, after 14 or 15 months in government—and all we ever seem to talk about is the Voice, not the cost of living or the real issues that the majority of Australians care about—that the Prime Minister could have, at the very least, set a date for this referendum. I think it's a deliberate distraction and nothing more than virtue signalling to the Marxists who want to divide the country on race rather than focus on the real issue of cost of living in this country. I took up Senator Payman's offer to read the Uluru statement while I was waiting here, and I just want to touch on this: 'That peoples possessed a land for sixty millennia'. It's interesting that, when I was growing up, I was told that the Aboriginals had been here for 20,000 years. Then it got extended to 40,000 years. If you actually look up the oldest known remains of any biped in Australia, it is Mungo Man. The dating on that is disputed, but it's somewhere between 24,000 years and 40,000 years. So what I want to know is: where does the claim for this 60,000 years come from? I'm not saying that bipeds haven't been here for 60,000 years, but the other thing is that, if you look it up, apparently Homo sapiens left Africa 60,000 or 70,000 years ago. Did they cross the Asian mainland and cross the Wallace line to get here, wiping out the Denisovans, Flores Man and whoever else was in Indonesia and wherever? I find that history very interesting, I have to say, but I just think we're stretching the truth when we try to claim that a particular race has been here for 60,000 years when there's no actual archaeological evidence to prove that. Even with Mungo Man the DNA is disputed and the stratigraphic detail is disputed. The argument is that he was too shallowly in the earth to have been there for 40,000 years. I don't know—I'm not saying I know the answers—but I do know that the goalposts has been shifted in my lifetime from 20,000 years to 40,000 years and then to 60,000 years. Of course, that matters because we've crossed two ice ages in that time. It's more that it's all feelings are no facts. Anyway, we really need to be focusing on the cost of living. Can we call a date for the referendum? Let's get on with it. Question agreed to. Uluru Statement from the Heart 69 15:49 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to a question without notice I asked today relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. I cannot believe that the government is actually still saying there's only one page in the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which, as document 14 states is 'one page, up to 26 pages'. But I just want to read this from the one page that they acknowledge: It captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia and a better future for our children based on justice and self-determination. So I thought: let's go to the Oxford dictionary and work out the word 'self-determination'. It is 'the process by which a country determines its own statehood and forms its own government'. 'Statehood' means 'the status of being a recognised independent nation'. That's on the first page, and the Prime Minister said that he accepts every word and agrees with it. That's a concern. People should be very concerned about the word 'self-determination'. But, in the document itself, it does say: It was considered as a way by which the right to self-determination could be achieved. … Any Voice to Parliament should be designed so that it could support and promote a treaty-making process. That is something which they all deny. You see, this is the document that they don't want the people to understand before they go to vote. This is why it's hidden, and they won't acknowledge it. But Megan Davis, who is the co-designer of writing the Uluru Statement, does. Who's wrong? They don't back her. Who's wrong, then? Then you go to: A number of Dialogues considered ways that political representation could be achieved other than through the proposed constitutional Voice. These included through the designation of seats in Parliament for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples … So we haven't been told the truth. That's why they will not accept this full document. You wouldn't even allow it to be tabled. You don't want the people to know what's going on. Be upfront and honest with the people of this nation before you change our Constitution, which will have such an impact on their lives. Question agreed to. Universities 70 15:51 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Senator Watt) to a question without notice I asked today relating to the student debt and safety at universities. I rise to take note of the deeply disappointing response of Minister Watt to my questions on student debt and sexual assault in unis. We are in the midst of a soaring student debt crisis. We are in the midst of an horrific crisis of sexual violence on campus. Yet Minister Watt chooses to dodge the questions, ignore the issues and effectively is saying to students: 'Too bad; you're on your own'—how heartless. Every week we hear from students whose debt is rising faster than they can pay it off. We hear stories of helplessness and despair as young people with their whole lives ahead of them get caught up in a debt spiral. We hear of people being locked out of the housing market and denied personal loans because of student debt. Labor has the power to wipe student debt and make uni free, but instead they choose not to. Shame! The cruel Job-ready Graduates scheme has gutted our universities, massively hiked student fees and cut billions of dollars of funding for overworked staff. It was a blatant, pathetic attack on the humanities by the coalition, which will result in students, especially female students, graduating with exorbitant student debts. Labor knows this scheme is a disaster, calling it 'broken beyond repair' while in opposition, but are doing nothing to reverse it. It's a pathetic abdication of responsibility. They should have binned it the second they came into power. No-one should ever have to experience sexual violence. It is so deeply harmful and traumatic, and it can totally upend and ruin lives. Yet every week at least 275 students experience sexual violence in university settings, and these numbers are from during COVID lockdowns. We need another survey to know the true extent of the rape epidemic now that students are back on campus. The government and universities have failed miserably in their duty to keep students safe. It was pretty outrageous and shameful that the minister could not even commit to ensuring another student safety survey would be conducted. What more will it take? The government must commit to funding the national student survey with universities and establishing an independent mechanism to hold universities to account. 15:53 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland We are in an epidemic of sexual violence on university campuses. We know this because the last national student survey found that 275 students every week are assaulted on campus. That is a horrific number of young people who are not safe on campus. So when my fantastic colleague and acting Greens leader, Senator Faruqi, asked the minister representing today: 'Are you going to fund that student survey again so that we know what the rates of sexual violence are on campus when it's not COVID times and people are actually back on campus?' I was flabbergasted that the minister didn't answer. It's a really simple question. It's not an expensive survey. It's a desperately important survey. The minister representing could not even commit to do a survey about sexual violence on campus, let alone actually deliver the things that students are calling for, which include a task force to hold universities to account on safety measures. You can't even commit to a survey? What is wrong with you people? We had a statement this morning in the other place by the Minister for Education. He's announced a working group on these matters. Where is the time frame for that working group? Where is the work program and what are the time frames? There is nothing about that. As far as we know, there are no time frames. You are kicking the can down the road, and you won't even commit to the most basic gathering of information, which is a survey about the number of rapes and assaults that happen on campus, let alone a decent oversight body that holds universities to account, let alone thinking about maybe making funding contingent on them keeping people safe on campus. It is an absolute bare minimum from this government, and I was floored that the minister representing would not even commit to redoing that survey, which happens once every three years and has given us these horrific results. We heard from Universities Australia today at the National Press Club. They said some nice words about wanting to take action. What is stopping you? You had a report six years ago telling you what to do. You've done next to nothing. They didn't commit to doing the survey either, or to having a decent oversight body. Wake up, folks. It's time for the federal government to take responsibility and fix this epidemic of rape on campus. It is not okay. Question agreed to. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 70 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Uluru Statement from the Heart 70 15:56 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania During question time, Senator Cash asked us if we would grant leave to have a document tabled. I can advise the chamber that the document was characterised as the Uluru Statement from the Heart and accompanying documents. The government will grant leave for the tabling of this document, released under freedom of information, in its entirety, which is the Uluru Statement from the Heart and accompanying documents. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I will take it that leave is granted and the documents are tabled. NOTICES 71 NOTICES Presentation 71 DOCUMENTS 71 DOCUMENTS Therapeutic Goods Administration 71 Order for the Production of Documents 71 15:58 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland At the request of Senator Rennick, I move: That— (a) there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, by no later than 5 pm on Thursday, 31 August 2023, all documents, emails or other records held by the Therapeutic Goods Administration relating to communications between senior executive staff concerning Senator Rennick and COVID-19 vaccines between 1 August 2021 to 8 August 2023; and (b) the Senate— (i) notes that part of these documents was the subject of a freedom of information request (number 4363) and that the documents provided in response to that request were heavily redacted, and (ii) requires the documents to be provided to the Senate in full and unredacted, and (iii) requires any redactions to be accompanied by a public interest immunity claim. 15:58 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute, Senator Chisholm. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 The government does not support this motion. Senator Rennick is welcome to request this information under FOI from the TGA. The Freedom of Information Act 1982 gives people the right to request access to government held information. This is the framework that the Australian parliament has agreed to for routine access to government held information. As Senator Rennick's motion notes, part of the information he is requesting through this motion has already been released under FOI. The only reason some information was redacted from the released documents is that it was outside the scope of the journalist's FOI request. If the FOI applicant is not satisfied with the TGA's decision, they can seek internal review or can apply for a review of the decision. This motion ignores the rights that all Australians have under the FOI Act to access documents held by Australian government agencies and ministers. Rather than come to the chamber for this motion, Senator Rennick is welcome to utilise these laws. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 293, standing in the name of Senator Rennick and moved by Senator Scarr, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:04]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question negatived.

COMMITTEES 73 COMMITTEES Environment and Communications References Committee 73 Reference 73 16:06 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I, and also on behalf of Senator Whish-Wilson, move: That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 November 2023: The current mismanagement of the funding of the Australian Antarctic Division (AAD), with particular reference to: (a) revelations that the AAD is pursuing cuts worth roughly 16% of its operating budget; (b) the direct and indirect impacts of cuts to public funding of Australia's Antarctic activities, including on full-time, part-time and contract AAD jobs; (c) the ramifications for Australia's international commitments and obligations; (d) the internal compilation of a list of at least 56 existing projects, programs and research activities that could be cut and/or terminated; (e) the extent of the Albanese Government's involvement in, and response to, these cost-cutting plans; (f) the consequences of funding cuts to Australia's Antarctic program for our country's geopolitical and strategic international interests; (g) complications that the proposed $25 million worth of cuts will cause for the full delivery of the Australian Antarctic Science Strategic Plan, the Australian Antarctic Strategy, the 20-year Action Plan, and the extra $804.4 million Antarctic funding package delivered by the Morrison Government in early 2022; (h) the widespread view, including among numerous Antarctic science experts, that funding cuts of this scale and nature are catastrophic for Australia; and (i) any other related matters. Question agreed to. Australia's Disaster Resilience Select Committee 73 Reporting Date 73 16:07 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I move: That the time for the presentation of the report of the Select Committee on Australia's Disaster Resilience be extended to 24 April 2024. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 73 DOCUMENTS Department of the Treasury 73 Order for the Production of Documents 73 16:07 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I move general business notices of motion Nos 290 and 291 together: GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 290 That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) question on notice ASIC-017, lodged by Senator Bragg as part of the Economics References Committee inquiry into Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) investigation and enforcement, sought a copy of the letter that the ASIC accountable authority wrote to the Treasurer in early 2021 which sets out a significant event in relation to the Deputy Chair of ASIC, (ii) only a heavily redacted version of the letter has been provided to the committee, and (iii) ASIC, in its response to the committee, dated 28 June 2023, and published by the committee on its website, made a claim of public interest immunity, citing the reasons given by the Government in a related public interest immunity claim made on 9 March 2023; (b) rejects the public interest immunity claim made by ASIC on 28 June 2023, noting that: (i) claims that information has been collected on the condition that it would be treated as confidential, and therefore cannot be disclosed, is not in itself a ground for a public interest immunity claim, (ii) it must be established that some harm may occur because of the disclosure of the information sought by the question, and (iii) any specific harm could be overcome by disclosing information in general terms without the identity of those to whom it relates; and (c) orders that there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than 5 pm on Thursday, 10 August 2023, the unredacted letter the ASIC accountable authority wrote to the Treasurer on 13 April 2021 which sets out a significant event in relation to the Deputy Chair of ASIC. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 291 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than 5 pm on Thursday, 10 August 2023, the summary produced by the Treasury that was used to brief the Treasurer's office in relation to the Seyfarth Shaw LLP findings following the investigation into the conduct of an Australian Securities and Investments Commission Deputy Chair. 16:08 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 The government notes the unreasonable time frame requested for the provision of these documents. The documents relate to sensitive matters with personal privacy implications. Treasury officials are actively progressing the request, but additional time is required to consider it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Whish-Wilson. 16:08 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Senator McKim, actually, President. The PRESIDENT 112096 Sorry! I beg your pardon. Senator McKim. It's the mask. Senator McKIM JKM The terrible Tassie twins! I have consistently said in relation to the investigation into the conduct of the ASIC deputy chair that the Greens will support disclosure if the matter has an effect on ASIC's capacity to fulfil its statutory function. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim, just a moment. Senator McKIM JKM I seek leave to make a short statement. My bad! The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McKIM JKM The redacted letter that ASIC wrote to the Treasurer on 13 April 2021, which has been recently published, states that the conduct in question was 'seriously impeding the ongoing effectiveness of ASIC's governance and administration'. Accordingly, the Greens will be supporting these motions. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion Nos 290 and 291 be agreed to. Question agreed to. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 74 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct 74 16:10 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x A letter has been received from Senator David Pocock: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: Noting the open letter to the Prime Minister from almost 2,300 health professionals raising concerns about the health impacts of the Middle Arm development, the Senate accepts the need to further scrutinise the development by way of a Senate committee inquiry. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x I understand that times have been organised. 16:11 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory We've recently seen almost 2,300 medical professionals write an open letter to the Prime Minister of Australia raising concerns about a project that is receiving $1.5 billion of taxpayer money. These are people who work on the front line in communities across the country, seeing people who need care and support and who at times are in life and death situations. They live by the principle of doing no harm, and what they are asking the government to do is to think about that and to commit to doing no harm when it comes to public funding for Middle Arm. These doctors and a number of scientists who have spent years—some have spent decades—looking at the health impacts on communities living next to precincts such as Middle Arm tell us that the health risks are significant. People living near oil and gas operations experience higher hospitalisation rates for heart disease and respiratory disease; higher hospitalisation rates for neurological disorders and existing asthma conditions; increases in some childhood cancers, particularly leukaemia; increases in immune deficiency disorders; and reduced life expectancy. A new petrochemical hub will put further strain on the already struggling Northern Territory health system. We've heard that directly from people working in the hospitals in Darwin, from paediatricians who are struggling to keep up with demand. Territorians experience the highest rates of chronic diseases in the country. This is a huge burden on the health system, and $1.5 billion of public money will enable projects that we know will make that burden worse. It seems negligent to add health impacts of petrochemical production to our health system that is already under acute, enduring stress. And it gets worse when we talk about Middle Arm. We'll hear from the government that this is not just gas, but we know that it does unlock the Beetaloo. It unlocks Barossa. They are two enormous gas deposits. The impacts of Middle Arm on our climate are huge. We know the centrepiece of the Middle Arm precinct is a 6.6-million-tonnes-per-annum LNG export facility operated by Tamboran, the same company that plans to frack the Beetaloo basin. We know that it will unlock huge quantities of gas for export. This is being enabled by taxpayer funding. This sort of spending is against the backdrop of almost 2,300 doctors raising their concerns and scientists who have studied this saying that this will lead to increased leukaemia rates in children—up to 30 per cent. The health impact assessment of people living in the Beetaloo basin says it'll likely have all of these adverse effects, but the populations are low, so we may never know. This is what this government's committed to, and the Senate should have the opportunity to look into this further, to provide more scrutiny and to examine the claims that have been made for and against this proposed development. There is no good excuse for the government to continue to vote against an inquiry, to continue to vote against more Senate scrutiny of $1.5 billion that will have real health and climate impacts. 16:16 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The government will not be supporting this proposal from Senator Pocock today. I note that the Senate considered basically the same question yesterday in a motion from Senator Hanson-Young. As Senator Pocock would know, the Senate opposed the establishment of an inquiry into this matter yesterday. Bringing the same question into the Senate not even 24 hours later is disappointing. It's an attempt by Senator Pocock to play politics on this issue and actually just delays the consideration of important legislation that is before the Senate this afternoon. Prior to the election last year, we made a commitment that an Albanese Labor government would invest $1.5 billion into the Middle Arm precinct and an additional $440 million into regional logistics hubs along key transport links that connect to Darwin at Katherine, Alice Springs and Tennant Creek. Our commitment to this investment was clear, and we intend to deliver it. I have twice this year visited Alice Springs and Darwin and I know firsthand how excited those communities are about the potential jobs that can be created through these investments. They understand that, for the Territory to become a thriving and consistent economic success story, you need to develop new industry. They don't want to be reliant on government funding, as they are now. They actually want the Northern Territory to become an attractive place for people to come live, stay, work and build long-term careers for themselves and their children. These investments are about creating economic opportunity and diversifying the economy, and that will be felt throughout the Northern Territory—not only in Darwin, where the Middle Arm precinct is, but also throughout the regional communities. For me, that is the exciting part, because there are really exciting opportunities in that part of the world. I was in Tennant Creek a couple of months ago and I met with people there who are excited about the potential of renewable energy and what it can provide and also about the support that can be made through Middle Arm as well. So it is very clear to me that this investment will be one that creates good economic opportunity for the Northern Territory. It creates jobs of the future for the Northern Territory and it's part of an Albanese government's vision for the Northern Territory. We know that it can play a significant role in the net zero economy of the future. That's what this Middle Arm project is all about. That's what it will deliver for the Northern Territory. That's why we are proud to be a government that is supporting it. It's also important, though, that we set the right parameters for those investing in infrastructure. That will support businesses and give all potential users in the market the opportunity to grow and thrive. The proposed projects linked to Middle Arm include the development of a hydrogen facility using solar energy to produce green hydrogen and critical minerals. Processing that will support the manufacture and export of lithium batteries. This investment will pave the way for Middle Arm to be a globally competitive and sustainable precinct and provide significant economic benefits and sustainable jobs. These projects are estimated to create 20,000 jobs in the Northern Territory—jobs of the future, in long-term, sustainable industries, and jobs that people can rely on to build a long-term future for themselves and their families. As I mentioned before, this investment will also help drive Australia's future net zero economy by supporting industries to export clean energy that is critical to meeting our net zero commitments—not just green hydrogen but also the manufacture and export of lithium batteries that are critical to global energy transition and decarbonisation. The last time I was in Darwin, a couple of weeks ago, I went and spoke at the Northern Australia conference. There was a significant focus at that conference in Darwin on the opportunity that renewable energy will provide for northern Australia and, in particular, the Northern Territory. It is clear to me that the direction of the federal government, our aims to meet net zero in this country and the work that we are doing will work so well with the opportunities that are available for us in northern Australia. So it is a good investment that the government is making. It is one that we are absolutely determined to deliver on. We are proud to partner with the Northern Territory government because we know that, for all of the country to benefit, we need jobs in the far north as well. That is what the Albanese government is so passionate about. We want these jobs spread around the country, creating new economic opportunity and providing the jobs of the future. The Northern Territory need those jobs, as do all other states and territories around the country, and we are proud to be a government that is supporting them. 16:21 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I note this motion calls for a Senate inquiry into the Middle Arm development. I think it's important, though, that the Senate notes that there was just a Senate inquiry into these matters. There was an inquiry into the development of the Beetaloo Basin and the Middle Arm project, which did begin in the previous parliament and did not finish until we came back after the election. There were some subsequent public hearings in that committee after the last election. So I'm just not sure that there needs to be another Senate committee so soon into this. It's also, more broadly, a development that has been looked at so many times by both the Northern Territory government and the federal government. At one stage, there were six separate Northern Territory government inquiries over seven years into the Beetaloo Basin and the associated development of the Darwin port. There was a moratorium for a number of years through that process. All of those inquiries came back and said, 'Yes, this gas development and the development of Darwin Port can occur safely while we protect the environment.' There were a number of regulatory changes made in light of those inquiries. The most recent one was the Pepper inquiry. I think it's just about time now that we let the Northern Territory government—and the federal government, with their support—get on with the job, given how many inquiries have been done. Clearly, the mover of this motion, Senator Pocock, does not support the development. I might get some time to say why I disagree with his judgement, but I would also note from the start that we perhaps should look at what the Northern Territory people want for this development. I know Senator Pocock's a very strong defender of Territory rights. As I said, there have been a number of reviews by the Northern Territory government. There have been a number of elections where this issue has been fought over and been an element of controversy. Time and time again, the Northern Territory people have elected governments in the Northern Territory that support the development of the Beetaloo Basin and the development of Middle Arm. So we should ultimately, at some point, respect that. I realise Senator Pocock has got questions. Others have got questions about the investment from the federal government in this development—the $1½ billion supported by both the coalition and the Labor Party. However, we do invest in different states and territories all the time. We've invested billions in the ACT light rail system, for example, here. I believe the ACT government's probably coming back for more for its extension as well. So, if it's good enough for us to invest billions in ACT infrastructure, surely it is good enough to make some investments for Darwin as well. That brings me to why this investment is needed and why we should do this, not just for our nation but also, especially, for the Territory. I've spent a lot of time in Darwin over the course of my career in the Senate. I was the Minister for Northern Australia for a number of years. It's a wonderful place with beautiful people. It's kind of in the right place at the right time—or it should be. If we take the opportunities, it's in the right place at the right time. It's an Asia facing port, with massive demand coming out of that region. It's the closest location we have to Indonesia—an enormous economy growing very strongly. It has great links with that country and other nations in South-East Asia. We really should be investing in Darwin if we're serious about participating in this Asian century. The one thing Darwin has lacked over its development, and still lacks, is access to reliable and cheap energy. It hasn't traditionally had a large-scale source of energy, and that has somewhat restricted its development of manufacturing and therefore restricted the development of its port. Without a strong manufacturing sector and a lot of exports, this great natural port has not developed to the extent it possibly could. The Beetaloo basin and other gas developments, the Middle Arm development, offer that opportunity to massively expand the manufacturing industry in Darwin, to help our nation make more things—which is what we should be focused on post-COVID. I want to say one thing on the development, while I still have time. I am concerned that the government, in its approach here, might unintentionally sabotage this development. I'm not questioning whether Senator Chisholm and his colleagues want this development to happen, but I hear from their language that they don't want to talk about gas or the use of petrochemicals—the development of that industry—because they're worried about the threat from their left wing and the Greens. All I hear now is 'hydrogen'. Hydrogen is unproven. There is no mass, large-scale export of hydrogen anywhere in the world. Maybe it will happen and maybe it will take off, but, if hydrogen doesn't come off and doesn't work, I worry the government's blinded approach to the real opportunities there in gas might mean this whole thing doesn't proceed as it could, when there is so much demand through South-East Asia for petrochemical products. Not just natural gas itself but the products that come from that that make so much of what we use, like glues, plastics—all the COVID stuff, the masks and all that, came from petrochemicals. We should support this development in Darwin. It's great for our nation and it's time to get on with it. (Time expired) 16:27 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I thank Senator David Pocock for bringing this matter of public importance before the Senate today. Indeed, as the government mentioned, it is very similar to a matter of public importance we discussed yesterday. I think it is worth talking about this today, yesterday, tomorrow or ongoing, day after day, because the significance of this development is extraordinary. You listen to the government's greenwash and spin, basically saying: 'This is going to be a wonderful precinct. It's all going to be focused on renewable energy, hydrogen, great jobs.' They don't want to talk about the fact that the Middle Arm development is all about having a conduit and having an industrial precinct to work with the Beetaloo basin, to work with the massive fracking of the Beetaloo and the massive climate bomb that is the Beetaloo basin. That is why this proposal is there to set up this Middle Arm precinct. It is a 1,500-kilometre precinct three kilometres from the outskirts of Darwin involving massive petrochemical development. It is very close to residential areas. I grew up in Altona, next to an oil refinery, and I know the impact of living next to a petrochemical development. But the government are saying, 'No, no, don't you worry about that; this is all about renewable energy.' If the government were serious about that, they could rule out having gas processed at Middle Arm. They could say: 'Yes, this is a renewable energy precinct. We are going to have renewables. We are going to have hydrogen. It might be a precinct that will facilitate the underwater cable to get renewable electricity into South-East Asia.' These are the sorts of things that could be. But we know it is associated with the Beetaloo basin, and the Beetaloo basin is a carbon bomb. It is a massive development. It will result in massive carbon pollution that the world just cannot afford. I just do not understand what part of the climate crisis this government, along with the Liberal Party and the National Party, don't understand. Don't they understand that a month ago the world had the hottest days that have been experienced on this planet for 100,000 years? Don't they understand the extent of the fires that are currently burning in the Northern Hemisphere, the thousand fires that are currently burning in Canada, primarily on First Nations land? Don't they understand the fact that we have just had record low sea ice extent? We are heading for a disaster. We are in a train travelling at 300 kilometres an hour about to go over a broken bridge. There is catastrophe on its way unless we stop the mining and the burning of coal, gas and oil. The last thing that Australia needs to be doing, the last thing the world needs, is a massive new fossil fuel development like the Beetaloo basin and for it to be facilitated by $1½ billion of public money. It is just extraordinary. Anybody that listens to the science, anybody that understands the seriousness of the crisis, would say we should not be developing new coal and gas. In fact, we've got the UN Secretary-General telling us that we have got 'global boiling' going on. We have got people who know about the climate crisis pleading with Australia and other countries to not develop new fossil fuel developments, and yet here we've got a government that is blithely ignoring that, taking us on that runaway train heading over a cliff. It is absolutely extraordinary. This is the reason that we need to keep talking about this. This is the reason that, yes, we do need to have a Senate inquiry into Middle Arm. This inquiry was in fact agreed to by the Labor Party during the separate Senate inquiry into oil and gas exploration and production in the Beetaloo basin. The government agreed to it then. These are the sorts of things that need to be explored in a Senate inquiry, to see why Australia thinks that it can be so far off track and away from the direction that we need to be heading in if we're going to have a safe climate for our kids and a safe climate for us now. It is an extraordinary thing to be proposing, and the Greens will continue to want to talk about it until it is stopped. 16:32 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I want to read out a statement by Larrakia man Eric Fejo. It reads: Hello everyone! My name is Eric Fejo, I am Larrakia. I have authorised Senator Lidia Napiljarri Thorpe to read my statement. I want to thank those people who have supported the Larrakia people and who have supported the protection of Australia's natural and cultural heritage. There are good people who have stuck their necks out to protect Larrakia country and to protect Australia's heritage. A special shout out to the Knitting Nanas; the Darwin people who have campaigned to protect Lee Point, especially the 11 people arrested at Lee Point for blocking the bulldozers; and the countrymen from north-east Arnhem land who supported Larrakia in protecting Lee Point. The city of Darwin sits over the traditional country of Larrakia people. Today Larrakia country is under threat by the Federal Government, the Northern Territory Government, and a consortium of private capital. Against the interests of the Larrakia people, the Federal Government— the federal Labor government, mind you— are involved in a housing development on traditional Larrakia land at Lee Point for Defence Housing, and they have partnered with the Northern Territory Government and a private consortium to develop a liquefied gas and petrochemical plant at Middle Arm. They have not recognised or respected Larrakia people, nor have they protected the natural environment and they have not genuinely engaged with Larrakia people over these developments. Twenty-two years ago, when I was experiencing some tough challenges in my life, my mother wrote some beautiful words encouraging me to fight and not quit because even though the road is hard, success will come if you stick to the fight. Our mothers provide nourishment, and they nurture, support, and protect us. Our mothers do so much for us. Our strength comes from our mothers. Larrakia country also provides nourishment, and it nurtures, protects, and gives me strength. The land is like my mother. When things get tough I take time out to listen to my country. It re-energizes me, it gives me life. Larrakia country is a living ecosystem because if you listen closely to country—the sound of the wind, the waves of the ocean, the trees, and the animals—you will hear what the country is saying. If you hear the country, then you will understand that people and the natural environment are all organic, a living, breathing entity all connected. Every form of life has a worth and a place in the ecosystem. We, Australians must have an allegiance to the land, its ecosystems, and the culture that runs through the land. Our natural and cultural heritage is the essence of who we are as people. If we continue to destroy our heritage, then we are nobody and we achieve nothing. My mother is no longer with us, but I hear her words in the struggle to protect Larrakia cultural heritage and Larrakia country. It is a hard road. However, I along with all of you, have a great responsibility and obligation to prevent environmental harm and to protect the rights of country, people and communities. We must live ecologically responsible and sustainable lives. We must protect the life support systems of the Earth, maintain biodiversity, and preserve our national heritage. We must prevent toxic or hazardous substances including gases such as carbon dioxide. These gases and toxic substances destroy our land and waters and affect our health and wellbeing. We must ensure that government and industry prevent the long term and indirect consequences of environmental harm including harm to our culture, health, and wellbeing. They are responsible for the damage to our environment and to our health and wellbeing and we must hold them to account. Why are governments and industry not able to protect our cultural and natural heritage? Why does Australia still rely on industrial development that destroys cultural and natural heritage? Why can't we create alternative industries that protect the natural environment, the cultural heritage, and the well-being of people? 16:37 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I rise to speak in support of this MPI put forward by Senator David Pocock. It was absolutely shameful to see this government not just once but twice vote down an inquiry into Middle Arm. It begs the question: what have they got to hide? What are they hiding over there? We know that this is a dirty petrochemical hub. We know that it will be in a place that currently holds ancient petroglyphs and the only known remaining rock art in the Darwin area, and it will put them at risk. We know that it will increase the Northern Territory's carbon emissions, and we know that it will be an export terminal for gas for the Beetaloo and Barossa gas fields. We also know that the government is aware of all of this and is completely ignoring it all. So what else is this government hiding that means it's so scared of the Senate doing its job, given that the Senate is the chamber of scrutiny, after all? This project does not stack up. It doesn't stack up on the health front; it certainly doesn't stack up on the front of cultural heritage protection; it doesn't stack up on the environmental or climate fronts; and we have some serious doubts that it will, in fact, stack up on the economic front. One point five billion dollars of taxpayer money has been put aside for this project, and the government wants to do this without any scrutiny—that's the laughable joke in this—and so without an opportunity for the Senate to ask any questions to the traditional owners, to the parents, to the doctors or to anybody, in fact, who has issues with Middle Arm. I met this morning with Australian Parents for Climate Action, who told me of many things that they had heard from politicians in this place and the meetings they'd had that would absolutely turn your hair white. It's the sheer hypocrisy. We expect that from the coalition. For a decade, people have expected that and they became attuned to that. When people come into this place and they talk to other MPs and other politicians who are now in government, who in opposition said things like, 'Oh, yes, of course we'll change that,' and then don't, they are surprised. They are dumbfounded. But guess what? The mirage that the government have built is cracking. They see greenwashing, lies and absolute ignorance. They see a government saying 'the climate wars are over' whilst destroying our cultural heritage and knowingly setting off all of these carbon bombs in our communities. It is absolutely disgraceful. Senior Larrakia people have said this artwork that exists right in the heart of Darwin is priceless for their mob and should be considered priceless. In fact, it is part of Australia's history, as I said last night in my speech. Both the Northern Territory and federal governments have failed to follow any of the cultural protocols that they claim to have at a state and federal level in regard to consultation with Larrakia people. I said last night when I spoke to the motion to establish this inquiry that Labor again sat alongside the opposition and voted this down, but this is a vital point. We are seeing this happen on the back of the Juukan Gorge disaster. We watched on with absolute shock and heartbreak the images of the sacred sites that were caved in—blown up, in fact—that caused worldwide outrage. Firstly, how could such a tragic event take place? But secondly, how could it be legal for this to be destroyed? I was the member of the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia that did those two reports. The first one was titled Never again and the second one was titled A way forward. We are in a place where we continue to see examples of industrial development, including my home state of Western Australia and on the Burrup Peninsula, which I have talked about at length, being put at risk by industry and by people saying, 'We are going to have to make a couple of sacrifices.' Are we sacrificing our own children's health because of the economic benefit that they think is going to come from it? Because that is the stage we are at now. We absolutely need to hear from traditional owners about how this project could impact on cultural heritage, their country, their environment, biodiversity. Again, we will keep talking about this issue and we will keep pursuing it. I thank Senator David Pocock for continuing to listen to those voices that are being brought into this place. MATTERS OF URGENCY 79 MATTERS OF URGENCY Israel 79 16:42 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter, dated 9 August 2023, from Senator Chandler: Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move 'That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The urgent need to condemn the Albanese Labor Government's latest broken election promise on Israel, as a result of a backroom factional deal ahead of Labor's national conference, which unilaterally changes Australia's position, and does nothing to advance Australia's long-standing position to support a lasting two-state solution, in which Israel and Palestine co-exist in peace and security within internationally recognised borders. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whip. 16:42 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The urgent need to condemn the Albanese Labor Government's latest broken election promise on Israel, as a result of a backroom factional deal ahead of Labor's national conference, which unilaterally changes Australia's position, and does nothing to advance Australia's long-standing position to support a lasting two-state solution, in which Israel and Palestine co-exist in peace and security within internationally recognised borders. I rise to speak on this urgency motion in relation to the Labor Party and the Albanese government playing factional politics with Australia's foreign policy and national security. Once again, yesterday the Labor government chose to play up to hard-left anti-Israel elements within its own party by rewriting our nation's foreign policy. We saw this happen back in October last year when the Labor government's refusal to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel was praised by terror groups including Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas. Now, the Labor government has once again done a dirty factional deal to appease the far-left in their own party, a factional deal that has happened not because of any policy imperative but purely on a basis of trying to manage the political appearance of the Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues. For many weeks now, we have known that something like this was coming. Labor sources had been talking openly about cutting various deals on foreign policy to get through their national conference next week without criticism of the Albanese government, and there is no question whatsoever that what was announced yesterday was one such dirty factional deal. Labor MPs have freely admitted as such, and I sincerely hope that Labor senators are not going to come in here today and deny that this is what has happened. A Labor MP was quoted directly in today's Australian confirming that this decision was a factional deal, saying: A Right faction source said the new policy represented an "olive branch" to Left-wing critics to "minimise the argy-bargy next week". That was in reference to their national conference. This Labor MP confirmed that, as part of the factional deal, 'the government will beef-up its language'. Just as its faction-driven refusal to recognise the Israeli capital was welcomed by Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas so too will this decision be welcomed by dangerous organisations and regimes, which are not just violently opposed to the existence of Israel but are also violently against the West, including Australia—organisations like Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the IRGC, which fund those organisations and have, in recent months, been ramping up support and pressure on those organisations to commit terror attacks against Israel. The Albanese government has shown its willingness to spring into action within weeks and change our foreign policy to manage the media around its national conference and appease the anti-Israel elements—or is it now a majority?—within the Labor Party. In contrast, it is now six months and counting and the Albanese government still hasn't managed to respond to a Senate committee report on the emergency human rights situation in Iran. Not only does the Islamic republic regime commit atrocities against its own people and against its critics abroad; its leaders openly state their desire for Israel to disappear off the face of the earth. I can't help but observe the speed at which the Albanese government will move to adopt the anti-Israel position of its left faction purely because a motion is anticipated to appear at their national conference next week compared to six months of refusing to respond to a report of this Senate urging action in response to the abhorrent behaviour of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Where is the demand from the left faction within the Labor Party for the Albanese government to respond to recommendations of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on human rights abuses in Iran? I haven't heard those calls. I don't believe there's a motion related to that at the national conference next week. Instead, what we get from this government is a fractional deal which will only serve to embolden the Islamic republic regime in its sponsorship and encouragement of terrorism against Israel. 16:47 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I'll commence by saying Australia is a friend of peace. Australia is a friend of Israel. Australia is a friend of the people of the occupied Palestinian territories. I am a friend of peace. I am a friend of Israel. And I am a friend of the people of the occupied Palestinian territories. I'm also the chair of the friendship group here in the parliament for the State of Israel, and I'm very pleased to work alongside Ms Vamvakinou, in the other place, who is the Chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Palestine. It is in proper, careful dialogue that we will do honour to our nation and strive towards peace. Peace can only reign in the Middle East if there are many of us all across the world who share the positions that I just articulated. My fellow senators, this is where we should be setting our sights: on the worthy goal of peace in the Middle East—such an elusive but worthy goal—rather than on what is happening here this afternoon, which sets its sights only on descent, discontent and division. The Australians have a right to expect better of us. This is why the motion is such a disappointment. I'd like to address the substance of the urgency motion put forward by Senator Chandler, and I do so as a senator for New South Wales but also in my role as the Chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Israel—a Labor senator. I want to remind people that it was Doc Evatt who, as President of the General Assembly from 1949 at the United Nations, served as chair of the ad hoc committee on the Palestinian question. He said, 'It was, in my view, something in the nature of a miracle that the nation of Israel became a reality.' We need to work with others multilaterally to continue to look for peace in the Middle East. The recent announcement by Foreign Minister Penny Wong returns the Australian government to its stated position of the Israel settlements as illegal under international law and it sees the readoption of the term 'occupied Palestinian territories'. The Albanese government view this alteration as maintaining consistency with our multilateral partners on the United Nations Security Council, with the European Union and also with the United Kingdom. New Zealand uses these terms, as do many of our other international partners. The government also views this rhetorical return as maintaining the longstanding classification that was shared by both major parties prior to 2014. Foreign Minister Downer referred to the territories as 'occupied', including in media releases and his responses to parliamentary questions. Foreign Minister Smith did so in 2009. Defence Minister Faulkner did so in 2010. The current Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Sussan Ley, used the term 'occupation' in a speech to the House in 2011. In 2014 Prime Minister Abbott referred to the Palestinian territories as 'disputed territories'. His foreign minister confirmed there had been no policy change. They were occupied territories. So for the opposition to come in here and play mischief with this and pretend it's a change is absolutely a misrepresentation of reality. Let there be no doubt that in adopting these terms the Australian government is reaffirming its commitment to a negotiated two-state solution in which Israel and a future Palestinian state co-exist in peace and security. The reaffirmation stands with the Australian government's strong support for the legitimacy and continued security of the State of Israel. The Australian government desires peace in all regions and corners of the globe. This includes welcoming the Abraham Accords and the declared official relations between Israel and Morocco, Bahrain, Sudan, and the United Arab Emirates, who joined Jordan and Egypt in officially recognising Israel. The government recognises and respects Israel's right to defend itself in a uniquely challenging environment, and the government believes that the Abraham Accords foster that protection to ensure that peace is ultimately achieved. It's the Labor Party's continued policy, without change, that a two-state solution is vital to ensuring peace and security. I am going to run out of time to speak more on this issue, and I hope we have the opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to peace and unity as a government for the whole nation. We need to do that in a bipartisan and multipartisan way. (Time expired) 16:52 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I am proud to be representing the Australian Greens in this place today as it is a party which long ago recognised Palestinian statehood and has the courage to call out Israel's systemic injustice for what it is: apartheid. Labor's shift in language is a small step forward, but it's the bare minimum and has taken such a long time. Labor must catch up quickly with the reality of the daily injustices that Palestinians face in their homeland. Human Rights Watch has said it. Amnesty International has said it. The UN special rapporteur for Palestine has said it. It's time for the Australian government to say Israel is an apartheid state. The State of Israel continues to deny the right of self-determination to Palestinians and continues to dispossess them of their land. We will continue to call for the foreign minister to recognise that apartheid is occurring, raise concern about the far-right agenda of the Netanyahu government and recognise the statehood of Palestinians. Shamefully, there remains a bipartisan commitment to the denial of Palestinian rights and minimisation of the crimes of the Israeli state. Palestinians, for decades, have been amongst the most oppressed people in the world. They are subject to daily humiliation, brutality and violence by the Israeli government. Just this week Israeli forces killed three Palestinians on the occupied West Bank. Every day Palestinians are killed or imprisoned or have their houses destroyed and have their land taken by Israeli settlement. For 75 years Palestinians have been betrayed by countries that refuse to hold their persecutor, the State of Israel, to account and give a blank cheque of diplomatic cover to anything the State of Israel does. The Labor government has approved 23 military permits to Israel since March—the same Israeli army which perpetuates crimes against Palestinian people every single day. Not only is Australia silent but the government is aiding and abetting this violence, oppression and systemic elimination of the Palestinian people. Australia is complicit, and it's a disgrace. The Israeli government is the most far-right, extremist coalition government Israel has seen, and the human rights of Palestinians are being further diminished by the day under this horrific Netanyahu regime. Yes, language matters, but this must be accompanied by taking real action for Palestinian human rights, including boycotting meetings with far-right Israeli ministers and placing targeted sanctions on Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich for their roles in inflaming human rights abuses against Palestinians. Labor must call the apartheid by its name and push for the Palestinian right to self-determination. 16:55 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland At the outset, before I make my remarks, I would like to note that, as she knows, I deeply respect Senator O'Neill, and I respect the fact that she is one of the co-chairs of the Parliamentary Friends of Israel. But, on this occasion, I do disagree with fundamental points raised during her presentation to this chamber, although I recognise that they were made in good faith. The reason I disagree with Senator O'Neill with respect to this point is that there are two limbs to the change in government policy as announced by Senator Wong in this chamber. The first limb is for the Australian government to adopt a policy that the settlements in these treaties are illegal under international law. I will speak to that in a moment. The second limb is to refer to those territories not just as 'occupied', as you referred to in your speech, Senator O'Neill, but as 'occupied Palestinian territories'. That's the second limb. That's important because the final status of both these issues—the legality of the settlements and where, under a two-state solution, some of these territories would be located—should and can only be the subject of a permanent negotiation between Israel and the relevant Palestinian counterparts. That is the only way this issue can be resolved: through a negotiation that permanently resolves these issues. It does not help the process for this government to give its opinion with respect to the legality of those settlements when the Oslo Accords and other agreements which have been made with respect to the peacemaking process recognised that these are issues which can only be permanently decided through a negotiated settlement. The final status of these issues can only be negotiated through a permanent settlement. It doesn't help that process. I recognise, Senator O'Neill, that you and I are on the same page. We want to see a two-state solution and peace in the Middle East. We're absolutely on the same page. But the government's actions in the last week do not help that process. In relation to the illegal settlement assertion, I say this to the Minister for Foreign Affairs: what consideration did the Australian government give, in coming to this decision on an extraordinarily complicated matter of international law, to the mandates and resolutions of the League of Nations following World War I? What consideration was given to the armistice boundaries following the war of 1948, after Israel's independence was declared? What consideration was given with respect to the de facto boundaries that were adopted after the Six-Day War in 1967? What consideration was given to the Jewish people's connection with some of these territories—some of their most holy sites? What sort of consideration was given to those issues? The answer is none. What was considered was the Labor Party's national conference this forthcoming weekend. The timing of this decision betrays that. That's what was considered, not this extraordinarily complicated matter of international law, which has an overlay of very real-world issues for the people of Israel with respect to their safety and wellbeing. Nothing was considered in that regard. What was considered was the forthcoming national conference of the Labor Party—the worst possible background to make such a sensitive foreign policy decision. I come back to that second limb. Commentators have expressed views on this. The wording adopted by the Labor Party in referring to occupied Palestinian territories presupposes the outcome of a negotiated settlement process. That is totally inappropriate. This matter will not be resolved by international parties seeking to unilaterally impose their views on the parties most affected—namely the people of Israel and also the Palestinian representatives. That will not resolve this issue. It must be a negotiated settlement which ultimately will, hopefully, achieve peace in the Middle East. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Before I call Senator McGrath, I remind all senators to please direct remarks through the chair as respectfully as they can. 17:01 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland What we have here is a Labor government that is making international foreign policy based on internal factional whims. We have foreign policy being decided by factional bosses. I reference my good friend from Queensland Senator Scarr and his rundown of some of the history of Israel and the borders. But that is irrelevant to this discussion, because foreign policy is being decided by factional bosses. What we're seeing is that the Labor Party will gather in Brisbane next week and the Prime Minister is playing factional games. He is using foreign policy to, in effect, manage his own political party. That is not just a national disgrace; that is an international disgrace. What message does that send to our allies—that our foreign policy is made up on the fly by our Prime Minister and Labor factional powerbrokers? Senator O'Neill 140651 It's a return to your language— Senator McGRATH 217241 I'll take the interjection from Senator O'Neill. This is a very important issue, and our side, the coalition, do believe in a two-state solution, but let's remember that Israel is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East. I dare anyone in this chamber to go to the West Bank and see if you have freedom of speech there. You won't. So let's just talk about what this is about. This is about freedom and democracy being thrown to the wolves of factional powerbrokers. (Time expired) Senator O'Neill 140651 It sounds like you're advocating for a one-state solution. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 I call Senator Ciccone and ask that Senator Ciccone be heard in silence. 17:03 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I think the interjection from my good friend Senator O'Neill is spot on. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Don't encourage interjections, Senator Ciccone. Senator CICCONE 281503 Hearing the contributions from some of those opposite, you have to wonder if they are actually trying to advocate for a one-state solution rather than a two-state solution. To be very clear, the government, from the very start, has made absolutely clear that the steps announced by Senator Wong do not prejudge any of the final status issues that those opposite are trying to claim they do. To be absolutely clear, Australia will not be imposing its views on the final borders and boundaries, which should be the result of peace negotiations. That is ultimately where we all should be focused—actually getting peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. It does not change our commitment to a negotiated two-state solution. It's because of our commitment to pursuing peace and stability in that region that we must call out the conduct of some of those that are undermining that. The government has been very clear that the alteration of language is not about prejudging these final status issues. And, of course, it does not change the fact that Australia is a committed friend of Israel. We'll continue to stand up against the unfair one-eyed treatment of Israel in many international forums and continue to stand up for and work with the Australian Jewish community against the scourge of anti-Semitism, which is often propagated by conspiracy theorists in relation to the State of Israel. We'll also continue to recognise and celebrate the long history of the friendship between our two great countries. Australia is very, very proud of our history as one of the very first country—in fact, we were the first country—to vote in favour of the 1947 UN partition resolution, which ultimately led to the creation of the State of Israel. Senator O'Neill 140651 The first voice. Senator CICCONE 281503 That's right, Senator O'Neill, the first voice. Then two years later we established the diplomatic relationships that we so cherish today. Our friendship is deep and it is enduring, and the Australian government recognises the unique security situation in and security needs of Israel. We recognise Israel's right to defend itself as it should. The policies of the Albanese government are guided by the principle of advancing the call for peace and moving towards a two-state solution. While any change in language in this space rightly attracts a lot of attention and scrutiny, I would make the point that the language that was put forward by Minister Wong yesterday is not new, as Senator O'Neill made absolutely clear in her contribution. But let's also remember that back in 2018 then prime minister Scott Morrison also confirmed that Australia was subject to the United Nations Security Council resolutions that described the territory as illegally occupied. It is always important to go back in history, and if you go back further you can see this language used from the Fraser government all the way through to the Gillard government. I also find interesting that somehow this issue concerning Palestine and Israel gets caught up in next week's national conference. Somehow there is a report out there from unnamed sources that the opposition want to play politics on this issue, rather than actually seriously talking about how we together can actually work to support that two-state solution peace process. We heard contributions from some on the crossbench describing Israel as an apartheid state. Disgraceful language is being used. But people need to understand that your actions can bring out the worst in some in this place and also in the community, and that is something we need to be very careful about. Those opposite want to play politics rather than working with the government of the day on how we can support our friends in Israel. Those opposite are coming in here using unnamed sources and so-called reporting of a conference. Maybe you need to look at yourselves and your own democratic processes around how your party organisation operates before you start throwing stones over the aisle. 17:08 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales While the Labor Left will be patting themselves on the back as they've succeeded in their push on behalf of Palestinians and further continue the denigration of Israel, there will be at least one name that won't rate a mention. In fact, they have deliberately chosen to ignore these activists or, worse, deny their existence. Abu Murkhiyeh was a 25-year-old Palestinian man who was shown in a grisly video being beheaded by an unidentified assailant. The suspect was arrested and questioned, a Palestinian who committed a horrific murder that had been motivated by Abu Murkhiyeh's sexual identity. This happened in October 2022, less than 12 months ago. Those in government are the champions of LGBT rights, if you listen to them, but clearly not when it comes to Palestine. In fact, homosexuality remains so deeply shunned in Palestinian society that in 2019 there was an Arab Barometer poll that found only five per cent of West Bank Palestinian respondents said society should tolerate homosexuality—in fact, the lowest number in the Arab world. So, instead of supporting Israel, the place that many gay Palestinians flee to from Palestine territories in genuine fear of their lives, those in government ignore—as they continue their left-wing crusade—the fact that it is Tel Aviv, in Israel, that hosts a large pride event. Only this week we saw Minister Wong trying to tie gender equality values on our Pacific neighbours if they want to receive Australian aid. Clearly the same rules do not apply when it comes to the Palestinians. There is a very broad global will that a two-state solution can be reached. But, now, before that can happen, and while those who actually live in Israel are affected every day by this issue—no need to worry! The ALP caucus has been able to draw lines on a map to determine where borders can be! The ALP caucus has now settled the dispute, all while settling its own internal factional disputes. Just this year, Minister Wong claimed in Senate estimates: 'We do not support unilateral actions which reduce the prospects of a just two-state solution.' Clearly, that was misinformation. When it comes to trying to calm the factional farm over AUKUS, with around 40 ALP branches about to oppose it at the National Conference, clearly this is a government that is happy to throw Israel under the bus. I would just like to draw attention to this, because I noticed that no-one from the Left of the Labour Party would come in and speak to this. In fact, it is two Right ALP members who are known to have strong connections to Israel. Senator O'Neill, I do credit you with being the co-chair of the parliamentary friends of Israel group, and credit the work that you do there, and I know Senator Ciccone has just returned. But we did hear the interjections from other senators coming from that side of the chamber, and, of course we heard the disgraceful contribution by the Greens. The fact that they talk about human rights abuses—may I just remind the Green of Abu Murkhiyeh and what happened to him simply for being gay. But, of course, those up there will scream the loudest about supporting LGBT, but not if you are a Palestinian. A gay Palestinian person flees to Israel to escape persecution, but you still refer to Israel as somehow being an apartheid state. Well, you might want to go and talk to some gay Palestinians and see how they feel about their treatment by their own people. But coming back to the ALP's decision, the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council has referred to this decision by Labor as 'profoundly disappointing', and the Australian Jewish Association described this move by Labor as 'hostile'. So we know that there wasn't consultation there. This Labor government needs be upfront and tell the Australian people—particularly Jewish Australians—if they consulted the Israeli government or the ambassador. We did learn today that the department—not the minister—made a call to the Israeli ambassador. Who in the Palestinian authorities was consulted? When and where? Whose bidding are they doing? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 The question is that the motion moved by Senator Chandler be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [17:17]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator O'Sullivan)

26 AYES Antic, A. Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Smith, D. A. Van, D. A. 30 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

DOCUMENTS 84 DOCUMENTS Consideration 84 COMMITTEES 85 COMMITTEES Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee 85 Report 85 17:21 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I present the 498th report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, together with executive minutes relating to other reports of the committee. It's worth reading. 17:21 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Scrutiny of Bills Committee 85 Scrutiny Digest 85 17:21 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland On behalf of Senator Dean Smith, the Chair of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, who does a wonderful job, I present Scrutiny digest No.9 of 2023 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, together with ministerial correspondence. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee 85 Government Response to Report 85 17:22 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I present the government's response to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade on its inquiry into international armed conflict decision-making. I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows— Australian Government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Inquiry into international armed conflict decision making August 2023 Introduction The Australian Government welcomes the final report by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's Defence Sub-committee (JSCFADT Sub-committee) on its inquiry into international armed conflict decision making. The report follows the referral of the matter for inquiry by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence in September 2022. The inquiry was a timely opportunity to examine a matter of considerable public and parliamentary interest. During the conduct of its inquiry, the JSCFADT Sub-committee engaged with diverse perspectives on this matter of importance. The Government appreciates the constructive and considered approach taken by the JSCFADT Sub-committee to weighing the importance of open and accountable decision-making by the Executive with the unique national security considerations that necessarily arise when deploying Australian personnel into international armed conflict. The Government considers the defence of Australia, its people, and its interests to be its most important responsibility. In fulfilling this responsibility, one of the most consequential options available to government is the deployment of Australian service personnel into international armed conflict—including all major war-like and peacekeeping operations by the Australian Defence Force (ADF). The gravity of such decisions cannot be overstated—an assessment clearly shared and affirmed over the course of the inquiry by all participants. The decision to commit the ADF to armed conflict has long been a prerogative of the Executive, with this authority exercised in practice by the Prime Minister and the National Security Committee of Cabinet. The existing arrangements support timely and flexible decision making as well as the security of highly-classified information that is necessary for governments to make critical decisions. This enables the ADF to effectively and efficiently deploy into contested environments while also affording the highest possible protection to its members. The Government acknowledges, however, that this should not detract from the important role of the Parliament in debating matters of national importance and holding the Executive to account for the decisions it has taken. An appropriate balance must be achieved that maintains the capacity of the Executive of the day to respond in a timely and effective manner to challenges to our national interests and national security whilst also providing the Parliament—and through it, the Australian people—with effective mechanisms to examine and debate the decisions taken by government. Maintaining an appropriate balance between these considerations serves to strengthen the openness and accountability that is fundamental to our democracy. In response to the inquiry's final report, the Government reaffirms its commitment to improving openness and accountability, including with respect to decisions to commit Australian service personnel to international armed conflict. The Government welcomes and supports the principal finding that decisions regarding armed conflict are fundamentally a prerogative of the Executive. The Government broadly agrees with the inquiry's findings on the importance of clarifying the processes by which such decisions are made as well as codifying practices relating to informing the Parliament about such decisions. The Government notes, in particular, the recommendations relating to the establishment of a new Joint Statutory Committee on Defence. The Government supports the establishment of such a committee and agrees that there would be substantial benefit in a mechanism for the proposed committee to receive classified information. The Government notes that this would be a significant step in improving parliamentary oversight and a substantial change to existing arrangements. The Government notes, therefore, that further work will be required to determine the precise scope, powers and functions of the proposed committee, particularly to avoid the potential for duplication and/or overlapping responsibilities with existing committees. The Government is committed to taking this work forward in a timely manner. The Government thanks the JSCFADT Sub-Committee members for their work in delivering the report and its recommendations, including considering 113 submissions and conducting a public hearing. Response to the report recommendations Recommendation 1 The Committee recommends that in implementing these recommendations the Government reaffirm that decisions regarding armed conflict including war or warlike operations are fundamentally a prerogative of the Executive, while acknowledging the key role of parliament in considering such decisions, and the value of improving the transparency and accountability of such decision making and the conduct of operations. Response: The Government agrees with this recommendation. The Government welcomes the reaffirmation by the JSFADT Sub-committee that decisions regarding armed conflict, including war or war-like operations, are fundamentally a prerogative of the Executive. The Government acknowledges the key role of the Parliament in giving voice to the views of the Australian people on matters of national importance, including with regard to Australia's involvement in international armed conflict, and in holding the Executive to account for the decisions it has taken. Recommendation 2 The Committee recommends that the Cabinet Handbook be amended to clarify that: Executive power in relation to armed conflict and the deployment of military force flows from section 61 of the Constitution In the modern era, Executive power is in practice exercised collectively via the National Security Committee of the Cabinet, whose decisions can be given effect via section 8 of the Defence Act or by advice to the Governor-General as Commander in Chief under section 68 of the Constitution In the event of war or warlike operations: It is preferable that section 68 of the Constitution be utilised, particularly in relation to conflicts that are not supported by resolution by the United Nations Security Council, or an invitation of a sovereign nation given that complex matters of legality in public international law may arise in respect of an overseas commitment of that nature A written Statement be published and tabled in the Parliament setting out the objectives of such major military operations, the orders made and its legal basis Response: The Government agrees in-principle that there is a need for greater clarity and transparency about the way that the Executive makes decisions in relation to Australia becoming a party to armed conflict. The decision to deploy ADF forces into international armed conflict is among the most significant decisions that can be made by the Executive. Such decisions are an exercise of prerogative power under section 61 of the Constitution. In the Australian system of responsible and representative government this is a decision for the elected Government and not the Governor-General. The Government thus supports codifying these practices to clarify that: 1. the executive power in relation to armed conflict and the deployment of military forces flows from section 61 of the Constitution; 2. the executive power is in practice exercised collectively via the National Security Committee of Cabinet; and 3. when the ADF is engaged in major military operations as a party to an armed conflict, a written statement should be published and tabled in Parliament setting out the objectives of those major military operations, the orders made and its legal basis. The Government reserves its right to determine the appropriateness of disclosures with respect to questions of international law and advice on questions of legality. The Government does not agree that the Cabinet Handbook is the appropriate mechanism for codifying these practices. However, the Government will publish on the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet's website, alongside the Cabinet Handbook, a Statement on international armed conflict decision making, to codify these practices Recommendation 3 The Committee recommends the Government include a new section in the Cabinet Handbook outlining expectations for practices to be followed in the event of a decision to engage in major international armed conflict including war or warlike operations. This should include: A requirement that the Parliament be recalled as soon as possible to be advised, unless this was not possible due to extenuating and appropriate circumstances (e.g., it was unsafe for the Parliament to meet due to conflict) A requirement that the Executive facilitate a debate in both Houses of Parliament at the earliest opportunity, either prior to deployment of the Australian Defence Force or within thirty (30} days of deployment. Debate should occur after a formal ministerial statement is made which explains the reasons for the operation, based on the 2010 Gillard model, as well as a statement of compliance with international law and advice as to the legality of the operation These practices should contain the caveat that the Governor-General is able to approve deferral of any of these requirements in specific circumstances, such as high risks to national security or imminent threat to Australian territories or civilian lives. Response: The Government broadly agrees that there would be a benefit in outlining the practices to be followed in the event of a decision to deploy the ADF to major military operations as a party to an armed conflict. The Government agrees that a Ministerial statement to inform a timely debate in both Houses of Parliament is an important mechanism to improve transparency and public debate in relation to a decision of the Executive to engage in major military operations as a party to an armed conflict and this should include the legal basis for the resort to armed force. The Government further agrees that this should occur at the earliest opportunity and not later than 30 days from the deployment of the ADF, subject to any considerations of national security or imminent threat to Australian territories or civilian lives. The Government reserves its right to determine the appropriateness of disclosures with respect to questions of international law and advice on questions of legality. As noted in Recommendation 2, the Government will publish a Statement on international armed conflict decision making, to codify these practices. Recommendation 4 The Committee recommends the Government introduce standing resolutions of both Houses of Parliament to establish Parliament's expectations in relation to accountability for decisions in relation to international armed conflict, providing for sensible exemptions to enable timely and flexible national security responses and requiring at a minimum that, when war or warlike operations are occurring: a Statement to both Houses of Parliament be made at least annually from the Prime Minister and Government Senate Leader and debate facilitated an Update to both Houses of Parliament be provided at other times during the year (at least twice) from the Minister for Defence and Minister representing the Minister for Defence in the other Chamber and debate facilitated These practices should be replicated in the Cabinet Handbook Response: The Government agrees with this recommendation. The Government supports steps to improve openness, accountability and public discussion on Australia's involvement in international armed conflict. The Government will implement this recommendation, noting the statements and updates will include unclassified information only. The Government will codify these practices in a Statement on international armed conflict decision making, to be published on the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet's website. Recommendation 5 The Committee recommends the Government: r evert to a traditional approach whereby Defence white papers and national security or strategy updates should be tabled in both Houses of Parliament within 30 days of their presentation to the Minister consider and apply mechanisms to codify this practice, such as embedding them in the Cabinet Handbook or by Standing Resolutions of both Houses of Parliament Response: The Government agrees with this recommendation. The Government supports the tabling of publicly-released Defence strategy documents in both Houses of Parliament within 30 days of their publication. These Defence strategy documents encompass those that are broad in nature, significant to Australia's national defence and contain unclassified information only, such as Defence white papers and Defence strategic reviews. These practices will be in codified in a Statement on international armed conflict decision making. Recommendation 6 The Committee recommends the Government introduce legislation to establish a Joint Statutory Committee on Defence to supersede and enhance the Defence related functions currently undertaken by the Joint Standing Committee of Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. This committee should have its powers set out in legislation, including oversight and accountability functions in relation to the Australian Defence Force, the Department of Defence and specified portfolio agencies including: scrutiny of Defence portfolio annual reports consideration of white papers, strategy, planning and contingencies scrutiny of Defence capability development, acquisitions, and sustainment consideration of matters relating to Defence personnel and veterans' affairs inquiry into matters referred by the Minister for Defence or either House of Parliament general parliamentary oversight of war or warlike operations, including ongoing conflicts and involvement in significant non-conflict-related operations domestically and internationally The proposed committee should be explicitly permitted to request and receive classified information and general intelligence briefings while also being subject to clear legislative constraints to its mandate, including restrictions on access to: individual domestic intelligence reports intelligence sourced from foreign intelligence bodies where such provision would breach international agreements detail regarding operational matters or information regarding highly sensitive capabilities or protected identities, except where specifically authorised by the Minister for Defence Statutory restrictions should be placed on members, their staff (one of whom should be able to obtain a security clearance at minimum NV2 level) and secretariat staff regarding the disclosure or publication of classified information with appropriate penalties including imprisonment for breaches. Notwithstanding the proposed committee's powers and ability to receive and request classified briefings, the legislation should also provide that the Minister for Defence should have an overarching power to veto the provision of any classified information to the committee whenever the Minister considers that the provision of the classified information in question would compromise national security. The committee's membership should be appointed by the Prime Minister, and, in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, constituted by: Six Government members and five non-Government members, with a minimum of: One Government Member of the House and one Government Senator One Opposition Member of the House and one Opposition Senator One Government Member as committee chair The Prime Minister and Minister for Defence should be provided with the ability to authorise specified members of Parliament (Ministers or senior Opposition Shadow Ministers) to be part of particular meetings, briefings or activities of the committee, during which they would not be considered members of the committee but would be able to participate subject to the same statutory restrictions regarding the disclosure or publication of classified information as committee members. Response: The Government agrees with this recommendation. The Government notes that this would be a significant change to existing arrangements and, therefore, that further work will be required to determine the precise scope, powers and functions of the proposed committee, particularly to avoid the potential for duplication and/or overlapping responsibilities with existing committees. The Government will conduct further work in a timely manner to determine the scope of the proposed committee and its appropriate powers and functions. Recommendation 7 The Committee recommends that, subject to Recommendation 6, the Cabinet Handbook codify an expectation that the Prime Minister or Minister for Defence will facilitate appropriate briefings of the Defence Committee regarding the conduct of significant military operations, subject to ongoing national security considerations as determined by the Prime Minister and Minister for Defence. This would include necessary authorisations to enable Ministers or senior Opposition Shadow Ministers to participate in such meetings. Response: The Government agrees in-principle to this recommendation, subject to the further work described in the response to Recommendation 6 and noting that the Government will codify these practices in a Statement on international armed conflict decision making. Response to Australian Greens additional comments Recommendation: Parliament should pass Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2020 requiring a joint sitting of parliament to approve Australian Defence Force deployments overseas. Response: The Government does not agree with this recommendation. The Government notes that the inquiry examined the matter of how Australian service personnel are deployed into international armed conflict in detail. The Government further notes that the majority report of the inquiry reaffirmed the importance to Australia's national security of the longstanding principle that decisions regarding armed conflict, including war or war-like operations, are fundamentally a prerogative of the Executive. The Government also notes the named legislation has not been amended since its original tabling in 2020. As previously noted in the 2021 inquiry on the legislation, it was found by the then Committee to have substantial evidentiary issues, which contributed to the recommendation it not proceed. Recommendation: The Defence Act of 1903 should be amended to explicitly limit Ministerial Power from unilaterally deciding on offensive troop deployments Response: The Government does not agree with this recommendation. The Government notes that the inquiry examined the matter of how Australian service personnel are deployed into international armed conflict in detail. The Government further notes that the majority report of the inquiry reaffirmed the importance to Australia's national security of the longstanding principle that decisions regarding armed conflict, including war or war-like operations, are fundamentally a prerogative of the Executive. Recommendation: Legal Advice given to the Howard Government and Cabinet, the Governor-Genera/ and Federal Executive Council should be made publicly available so that Australians can determine for themselves what was understood about entering Iraq Response: The Government does not agree with this recommendation. As a matter of convention, the government of the day does not publicly disclose the confidential deliberations (including advice provided to inform cabinet decision making) of a former government. This is a longstanding and fundamental practice in the Westminster system. Recommendation: Any and all legal advice the government has or has sought on its interpretation of Section 8 of the Defence Act as an alternative to Section 68 of the Australian Constitution should be made publicly available Response: The Government does not agree with this recommendation. As with the previous additional recommendation, as a matter of convention, the government of the day does not publically disclose the confidential deliberations (including advice provided to inform cabinet decision making) of a former government. This is a longstanding and fundamental practice in the Westminster system. 17:22 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales In respect of the government response to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade on its inquiry into international armed conflict decision-making, I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 89 DOCUMENTS Senate Estimates 89 Order for the Production of Documents 89 17:22 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I table documents relating to an order for the production of documents concerning estimates questions on notice. PricewaterhouseCoopers 89 Order for the Production of Documents 89 17:22 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I table documents relating to an order for the production of documents concerning PricewaterhouseCoopers. 17:23 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales In relation to the return to order of documents concerning PricewaterhouseCoopers, I move: That the Senate take note of the documents. I want to first of all acknowledge the leadership that Senator Gallagher has shown with regard to the immediate threat to the integrity of the systems for purchasing services through consultancies in Australia. I am very pleased that she has put this response forward today. This order for the production of documents was moved by Senator Barbara Pocock, and the minister provided a response on behalf of the Treasurer. I understand the frustration that Senator Pocock has with the obfuscation that we've seen from these enormous companies and the differentiation in the sorts of answers we've had from people dodging and weaving with respect to our ongoing investigations into audit accounting in the consulting sector. I have been investigating audit and assurance for years and years in the PJC, so I understand the frustration. For far too long, I would say, unethical behaviour has been allowed to flourish within this sector. We've seen our government departments and our departmental staff treated with a level of disrespect and contempt that is just untenable. In the wake of 10 years of a Liberal-National government and the systematic dismantling of the Public Service, consulting firms have indisputably grown to represent a significant risk to the Public Service. The concerns of this matter are replete across the entire chamber. I've not met a senator who said, 'You should stop this inquiry, you should cease this inquiry.' People here really want us to continue the drive to uncover the fullness of transgressions that have occurred within the sector. But I urge continued unanimity on this matter. We have to be mindful that the matter of PwC and their grotesque misuse of government information is now a matter for criminal investigation by the Australian Federal Police. They need to get to the bottom of the matters referred. We must do our work with integrity, with rigour and with vigour here the Senate, but we must do that without compromising the inquiry. I urge all senators to stick to that path. We have done that so far—very well, in my view—through the F&PA committee, through estimates and, hopefully, in the not-too-distant future, through the inquiries of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. It's been determined that the production of documents Senator Barbara Pocock is seeking in this motion would potentially prejudice or jeopardise the criminal investigation. That is why some documents can be advanced and others can't. At this point in time we would be very wise to accept that and allow the AFP to do what they need to do. In regard to the details of this particular saga, the story goes that the Australian people were actually robbed by PwC twice—once through direct theft, with Mr Peter-John Collins taking confidential information from the Treasury, and a second time through misuse of that confidential information by PwC through the attempt to create a product designed to inhibit the collection of tax fairly owed to Australia by multinational companies that do business here. The taxes that we all pay need to be supplemented by the fair, reasonable payment of taxes by these multinational companies that do business in Australia. Taxes pay for our roads, the bridges and infrastructure that we need, proper internet access, hospitals, schools and all the services Australia needs. Schemes of tax avoidance are a grave wrong that's an ethical and moral dilemma for the business sector to interrogate and manage. Profit-seeking is a good thing if you are investing capital; everybody deserves to be rewarded for the effort they put in. But what we've seen is gross, rampant profit-seeking at the cost of the Australian people, and it cannot continue. The way our nation, and, indeed, politicians across the spectrum, has come together to condemn the actions of PwC and to scrutinise other entities such as EY, KPMG and Deloitte really is a hallmark, I believe, of the seriousness of the misconduct in which Mr Peter-John Collins, PwC Australia and PwC global engaged. The schemes they produced are simply untenable. We've seen in just the last 48 hours the release from the Australian Taxation Office of the detailed outline of their interactions. Dozens and dozens of Australian taxation officers have had to be put on the job to interrogate the work of PwC. That's a cost to us that we shouldn't have to bear, in trying to clean up after people who were trying to rip us all off. There are few issues upon which media, industry and politics are so united in their condemnation. I urge caution by Senator Barbara Pocock, who I know is absolutely committed to seeing this through, alongside me and my other colleagues who have been working on these committees. I want to acknowledge Senator Colbeck and also my colleagues in the Economics Committee under the leadership of Senator Jess Walsh. There's been unity in the condemnation of PwC. Let's make sure Australians get access to the justice that they need to see. The capacity of the AFP to investigate and, if necessary, prosecute this matter in a court of law cannot be hindered by frustrated action here in the Senate. We want to make sure that the proper prosecution of those who have been found to do wrong at law is able to be undertaken. It would be another grave wrong perpetrated against Australian people if we were not to undertake our responsibilities very carefully in this place. I see that the chair of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, Senator Colbeck, has come in to join us. I want to acknowledge him for his leadership of that committee. I also want to commend to people who are interested in the detail, the PwC:a calculated breach of trustreport, which is a short but, I think, powerful factual record of what has occurred and what the Senate has found. In the course of delivering that information to the parliament, we took extreme care to make sure that none of the evidence that might be needed by the AFP was compromised in any way. For the sake of unanimity and for the sake of getting the right outcome for the Australian people I really want to make sure that we don't create division where none truly exists. The Albanese government, I can say, is deeply committed to investigating and responding to the misconduct of PWC and the consulting and audit industry more broadly. I want to go to evidence to indicate the seriousness with which the government is taking this, and also the capacity for urgent action indicated by the action that has been taken by the government in response to what's been unveiled. On the weekend, the Albanese government noted and revealed to the Australian people the biggest crackdown on tax adviser misconduct in Australian history. Three key areas were announced on the weekend. They were: strengthening the integrity of the system, increasing the powers of our regulators and strengthening regulatory arrangements to ensure that they're fit for purpose. Since coming into government, the Labor Party has already brought in legislation to strengthen the Tax Practitioner Board, which was introduced into parliament earlier this year. We also gave a $30 million funding boost to the Tax Practitioner Board to increase compliance activities. That happened in our first budget, the October 2022-23 budget. I want to give a shout out to the Tax Practitioner Board, which is a little-known entity but is the entity that provided the Senate, in accordance with the expectation what we have for truth telling from public servants, with the 144 emails that revealed the absolute shame and disgrace of what was going on for all those years inside PwC. In addition to those actions, we will be increasing the powers of our regulators, removing limitations on tax secrecy laws that are a barrier to regulators, enabling the ATO and Tax Practitioner Board to refer ethical misconduct by advisers to professional associations, protecting whistleblowers when they provide the Tax Practitioner Board with evidence, giving the practitioner board more time—up to 24 months—to complete their investigations and improving the Tax Practitioner Board's public register of practitioners. (Time expired) 17:33 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I acknowledge the comments of Senator O'Neill and seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. BILLS 91 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023 91

Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023

First Reading 91 17:36 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 91 17:36 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— The Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023 gives effect to the government's election commitments. These election commitments were announced in April 2022, with specific details announced in the October 2022 Budget. These policies are grounded in the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on base erosion and profit shifting, which began in 2013. Working together within this Inclusive Framework, over 135 countries and jurisdictions are collaborating on the implementation of measures to tackle tax avoidance, improve the coherence of international tax rules and ensure a more transparent tax environment. The Bill introduces new rules to protect the integrity of the Australian tax system and improve tax transparency. This will help to ensure a fairer and more sustainable tax system. The government will continue to engage with stakeholders on our commitment to introduce a public country-by-country reporting regime. Schedule 1 to the Bill amends the Corporations Act 2001 to require that Australian public companies disclose information about their subsidiaries in their annual financial reports, by way of a 'consolidated entity disclosure statement'. This new requirement is a statement that includes disclosures about entities within the consolidated group. This statement will be provided at the end of the financial year, and include information such as: the names of each entity; whether the entity was a body corporate, partnership or trust; if the entity is a body corporate, the public company's percentage of ownership; and the tax residency of each of the entities. The reported information will ensure companies are upfront with how they structure their subsidiaries, including for tax purposes. Public companies for this purpose include listed and unlisted companies and is defined to mean a company other than proprietary company or a corporate collective investment vehicle, in line with section 9 of the Corporations Act. While some ASX listed companies may already disclose this information in some form, this change will ensure all public companies will now have equal requirements for reporting basic information on their corporate structures. These amendments will hold companies, particularly large corporate groups, to account on their corporate structures and whether they are operating with opaque or atypical tax arrangements. Given the global momentum towards ensuring that firms pay their fair share of tax, it is in the public interest that shareholders and the community have more information of this kind. The amendments in Schedule 1 will apply to annual financial reports prepared for financial years commencing on or after 1 July 2023. The Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was consulted in relation to Schedule 1 to the Bill and has approved it as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002. Schedule 2 to the Bill amends Australia's thin capitalisation rules to limit the amount of debt that entities can deduct for tax purposes. These amendments introduce earnings-based interest limitation rules for general class investors to replace the existing asset-based rules. Specifically, the current safe harbour rule lets an entity deduct debt up to a threshold of 60 percent of assets. Under the new rules, that threshold will become 30 percent of profits. This will ensure that an entity's debt deductions are directly linked to its economic activity—its earnings—which is a more robust approach to addressing the use of debt as a base erosion and profit shifting risk. This amendment is consistent with the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's best practice framework rules. The amendments in Schedule 2 also introduce a third-party debt test to replace the existing arm's length debt test. While this test excludes related party debt—a high base erosion and profit shifting risk activity—from being deductible for tax purposes, it is expected to be used by the property and infrastructure sectors to ensure genuine commercial arrangements can deduct third-party arm's length debt without an earnings limitation. Treasury will continue to engage with industry to ensure the changes operate as intended. The amendments to strengthen Australia's thin capitalisation rules will ensure multinationals pay an appropriate amount of tax in Australia, while balancing tax settings to support continued investment in Australia. The amendments in Schedule 2 apply from 1 July 2023. As with the other measures in this bill, this measure forms part of the Government's election commitments, and as such has been foreshadowed for over a year. Tightening Australia's anti-avoidance legislation will deter multinationals from avoiding income tax, ensuring that they pay their fair share of tax in Australia. The tax integrity measures in Schedule 2 to the Bill are estimated to result in a gain to receipts of $720 million over the 4 years from 2022-23. Full details of the measures are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111. Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill 2023 92

Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill 2023

Returned from the House of Representatives 92 COMMITTEES 92 COMMITTEES Finance and Public Administration References Committee 92 Reference 92 17:37 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia I, and also on behalf of Senator Nampijinpa Price, move: That the following matter be referred to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 June 2024: (a) the role, governance and accountability requirements of Aboriginal Land Councils and/or similar governing bodies across Australia, their respective members and how these are maintained; (b) the scope of services funded by the Australian Government and delivered by Aboriginal Land Councils or similar governing bodies and Aboriginal organisations, and how they are impacting the communities they act on behalf of; (c) how services are delivered, their effectiveness and whether other opportunities exist to provide greater community-led benefit to Traditional Owners; (d) how Traditional Owners are consulted in making decisions that impact on the entire community; (e) how Aboriginal Land Councils and/or similar governing bodies and Aboriginal Organisations assess applications for funding and development and any reasons for delays; (f) how the future of Aboriginal Benefit Account funding will benefit communities; and (g) any other related matters. Transparency, accountability and outcomes: these three words should underpin everything, and they should be the words that underpin the way taxpayers' dollars are spent by the many organisations for the purposes of which they are intended. But, unfortunately, we know this is not always the case. For too long we have turned a blind eye to their lack of reporting, their lack of accountability and, without a shadow of doubt, their lack of outcomes. If there are exceptions, then let's hear about them, but the people for whom these organisations exist to benefit should also know that they are not perpetually destined for much of the same. I'm not talking about all organisations, but I am talking about exploring how all organisations can do better and to understand their commitment to working towards doing better. Some of these organisations I expect should appear are in charge of millions of dollars meant to be directed to the most vulnerable in our communities. Others are small, but their responsibility to deliver positive outcomes for those most vulnerable is not less important but more necessary. I've heard many stories and seen it for myself—organisations must be under greater scrutiny. They need their leadership under greater scrutiny if there is any hope of ending this self-interested power play, corruption and collusion. Organisations that are doing the right thing have nothing to fear from this. Today, Senator Nampijinpa Price and I are calling for better outcomes for individuals and communities. It is time to take a serious look into these organisations and find out what's really going on—the good, the bad, the ugly, the very ugly. No referendum, no voice can fix the problems that are plaguing Indigenous Australia. The solution starts with looking at self, not at others. Two reports have increased my frustration and concerns. Indigenous Australians—in fact, all Australians—have an interest in these reports. The ANAO independent performance audit of the National Indigenous Australians Agency, known as NIAA, and the Productivity Commission's draft report of the review of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap are the two reports, if you need more evidence. In fact, if you are objecting to this then you are simply ignoring the facts and protecting the status quo, and that is far from good enough. Stop this absurdly racist double standard. The highest expectations for the most vulnerable in Aboriginal communities are a minimum. We're hearing about accountability in a major consulting firm—we just heard about that—so what is different here? The two reviews cast a very dark cloud over how the rivers of money are being managed. The alarm bells have been ringing loudly for a very long time. It is not a short list. The audit found the NIAA, the organisation that the minister is responsible for, is not meeting legislative requirements for risk and fraud management. Raising the biggest red flag is the NIAA's failure to commence even a single fraud investigation in 2020-21. The NIAA has handed out more than $1 billion in funding to more than 1,000 external providers but has failed to properly detect or manage any fraud. Its management of provider fraud and noncompliance risk is partly effective, although it is not consistently or sufficiently considered as part of grant design and establishment processes, so frameworks for managing provider fraud and noncompliance are not fully fit for purpose. That's a lot, isn't it? But wait, there is still more. The NIAA's arrangements for the prevention, protection and referral of potential provider fraud and noncompliance were only partly effective. The NIAA's triage, management and resolution of referred matters related to potential provider fraud and noncompliance were also partly effective. Of the eight new revised or extended grant opportunities at February this year, just one had a finalised risk assessment that considered fraud risks. The NIAA's program compliance and fraud branch has not provided adequate monitoring, review or reporting on forward risk assessments. Relevant, mandatory and nonmandatory training is offered; however, it is out of date. And there was no corruption control testing between July 2020 and December 2022. Let's stop and think for a second about what I have just outlined. Not a single fraud investigation, practices that are out of date, not consistent or sufficient, only partly effective. This behaviour is occurring within an executive agency that operates under the Public Service Act, and it is the lead agency for Commonwealth policy development, program design, implementation and service delivery for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. How is that even close to leading practice? How is that anywhere close to demonstrating operating standards in action? High expectations, and who is responsible? Well, the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Minister Burney, the assistant minister Senator McCarthy and, ultimately, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. The NIAA's partly effective practices, out of date training, failure to investigate and other shortcomings are just simply not acceptable. They're not acceptable to me and should not be acceptable to anyone in this chamber, this parliament and certainly not to Indigenous Australians or Australian taxpayers. But listen, do you hear the Albanese government demanding for a fit-for-purpose risk framework and for the enterprise group fraud and program risk assessments to be aligned, even though this is not occurring at present? No, you don't. Wake up, Australia! This type of accountability is becoming standard, and the Albanese government prefers instead to talk about other things. Despite being directly responsible for the NIAA, the minister chooses to prioritise other stuff. Add to that the many examples of outstanding annual reports and other governance compliance not being met by government funded Indigenous bodies and service providers, and it is easy to see why we have a glaring problem. Millions and millions of dollars are flowing down the river without question—no checks, no balances, just partially effective. We don't even really understand the extent of it, because nobody has the frameworks in place to properly assess risk, to properly manage issues, to even properly manage complaints, let alone the response time it takes to consider, to look at and to investigate when there are questions raised. I actually agree with Senator Hanson, who said in an interview in July: How can we have confidence our taxes are going where they should if the NIAA is not following the rules to guard against frauds? It's hard to disagree with that. As I said, transparency, accountability and outcomes—that's what changes the dial. If we applied those principles to every one of the billion dollars spent by the NIAA in funding to the more than 1,000 external providers, I can guarantee that life for those marginalised Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people among the 800,000 Indigenous Australians being targeted by the funding would be much better. It doesn't need further bureaucracy to tell you that. There's no reason to expect anything less. The NIAA has a large national footprint, with more than 1,200 employees, including over 40 earning in excess of $220,000 a year, spread across offices in remote, regional and urban locations. That workforce should ensure the basics of management and good governance are carried out. As stated in one of the NIAA audit report's key messages: Where programs involve payments going to providers, there should be organisational commitment to the prevention and detection of fraud and the identification and remediation of provider non-compliance. Are you serious? That's what they say, and yet they're not doing it themselves. We must remember that every dollar spent by the government is a dollar earned by someone else. It's a dollar every Australian should be expecting should be spent wisely. Taxpayers deserve to have the government hold every dollar to account and make existing frameworks accountable. Even on its website, the NIAA states: … our decisions must be transparent, our policies justifiable and our practices beyond reproach. So why isn't it occurring? I didn't make this up; you can't make this up. It's there in a written report of one of our own agencies that looks at auditing. There's a frighteningly similar picture painted in the Productivity Commission's draft report of its review of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. The draft report finds governments have made little progress towards the agreement and its four priority reforms, which is limiting improvements in life outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It states: Progress in implementing the Agreement's Priority Reforms has, for the most part, been weak and reflects a business-as-usual approach to implementing policies and programs that affect the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. That doesn't give me much hope. That's right—a business-as-usual approach. There's no accountability, no demanding of outcomes for every single dollar spent. For every night we go home and we sleep in a comfortable bed, when these programs aren't delivered to maximum effect, there is a victim. Sometimes they're invisible, but there is a victim. They're depending on us to do a better job, not absolve responsibility to someone else. That report goes on to say: Current implementation raises questions about whether governments have fully grasped the scale of change required to their systems, operations and ways of working to deliver the unprecedented shift they have committed to. Senators Nampijinpa Price, Thorpe and Hanson and I have been among the growing loud chorus asking why only four of the 19 Closing the Gap targets are improving. Who is being held to account and where are the outcomes? Start looking at those 1,000 organisations. No constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament is going to fix the multitiered system costing billions of dollars yet failing to deliver those outcomes. If you want an example of how service providers are letting making progress on improving the lives of Indigenous Australians fall through what is a chasm, look no further than your own town and community. These organisations exist to improve the lives of people who they deliver service to. This request is to give voice to those who know, who say, who can give examples of how it can be done better. What we need is to fix what is broken, and, to fix it, first we need to find out just what's going on. That's why this inquiry is so important. We have an obligation to fix what's already in place. We have an obligation to consider common sense and commitment to ethical practice and to expect that the organisations themselves and those that fund them have checks and balances in place for the better. I've had constituents from South Australia talk regularly about what they view as maladministration, mismanagement, corruption and fraud—this from courageous people who speak up but who see nothing is really done in terms of change and reform. Indeed, when the Commonwealth does investigate, it can be two years before an investigation is completed, so, if there's an issue, nothing is done for the entire time while the organisation gets their act together. That's a lot of damage. That's a lot of lives impacted in that time frame, and not for the better, either. A quick read of the annual reports of these organisations will tell you something is wrong. It's an indication of issues of transparency, accountability and compliance, and yet some of these organisations haven't even publicly released their annual reports. It's a joke. It's simply ridiculous. It is taxpayers' money, and it's not an endless bucket. Consider the native title system. There were huge expectations then, too, for those lucky enough to be on land where there is development and resources. You don't hear much about that anymore. In some cases, the so-called intergenerational benefit is being sucked up by a single generation of greedy, aggressive individuals. Now let's turn to land councils. You look at the ANAO report into just one of the land councils and the words used to describe what it has been doing: only 'largely effective'; 'could be improved'; and 'largely effective'. It says: The CLC's— in this case, the Central Land Council— arrangements to promote the proper use and management of resources under the PGPA Act are largely appropriate, except for arrangements to manage the risk of fraud and conflicts of interest. Are you serious? This is not new. Managing conflicts of interests and fraud—there's a recurring theme here. We need to demand better from these organisations. The next generations deserve better. Prime Minister Albanese is in no way fulfilling his regular mantra of getting better outcomes and closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians by listening. Why isn't he listening now? Without that action, Australians are being provided a front-row seat to a hazard that lies ahead. We need to stop talking, stop dancing around what is occurring under the government's nose and start doing what's right. We should begin doing the work that makes the change for the better. When you have many Indigenous organisations such as land councils failing to comply, you're not setting a very good example. We deserve better. Transparency and accountability right now. 17:52 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I oppose this motion, as does the Labor government. As the Chair of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee of the Senate, where we already have a role in oversight of these agencies, including through the estimates process, I know the Senate and the committee have worked hard to support the very organisations that you seek to bring into your purview to attack in a references inquiry. We have supported them in their education and training to be accountable to the Senate and therefore to the broader community, and we have asked questions. I have to say I have seen some of these small native title organisations having to travel, at great expense, from remote places in Australia to attend estimates—and rightly they should—to only have a few short, very politically motivated questions directed at them and, indeed, to be dismissed by other senators without further questioning. I also think the timing of this inquiry is highly politically motivated in the context of work that's happening in the broader community to support a 'yes' vote in the upcoming referendum. Those opposite will laugh and snicker, but it proves my point in the context of this debate, that this is a diversion by those opposite that I think, frankly, diverts the resources of community organisations who want to serve their communities and, indeed, raise the voices of people they represent inside those organisations. Whether they be land councils, prescribed body corporates or other registered organisations under the registry of Aboriginal controlled organisations there's a great diversity of work going on in all of these Aboriginal led organisations. They need to have clear air and space to do that work, and also to participate in the referendum, to get their message to wider Australia about why Indigenous led and controlled organisations—and those organisations having clear rights and powers and autonomy of their own—is important to our nation and to the wellbeing and empowerment of First Nations people right around Australia. In that context, I want to highlight that in addition to this parliament these organisations are scrutinised by the Australian National Audit Office, which has finalised and released performance audits into three of the Northern Territory land councils this year. They are robust and rigorous audits. You can look at those reports anytime you like. The ANAO looked at the Central Land Council over a whole year. They interviewed staff, observed records, looked at their council. The audit found the arrangements were largely appropriate and that the land council is working on each of the ANAO's recommendations. It was not an expectation that these organisations would be perfect, but a clear audit and support that enables them to engage with their members, lift their standards and get on with the work that they are mandated by law to do, rather than your politically motivated attacks, is how our democracy and oversight is supposed to work. The Central Land Council is, for example, publishing six-monthly updates on progress and the implementation of the report. We have a National Anti-Corruption Commission, a Commonwealth Ombudsman. The organisations are also subject to the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. Many of these organisations are also governed by state legislation. And I have to say some of the difficulty that organisations can find—look, you could create terms of reference that look at how we can better support and empower organisations by getting red tape out of their way, but that is not what you propose to do in this diversionary reference that you have got before us. Really importantly, organisations registered under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act, the C(ATSI) Act, are regulated by the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations. And you can see from the robust work that that organisation does with organisations, and there are many thousands of them, that they play a key capability and auditing role. We heard from the regulator about how they move unregistered organisations that might not have met their registration requirements out and deregister them. We heard how they really look to make sure that people meet their accountability and appropriateness for registration. Essentially this means that in order to be registered you need to have met the management and corporations and democratic or underlying principles within the governance documents of each organisation. We know ORIC to be an effective organisation in registering Indigenous groups that want to incorporate or transfer their registration to operate under the C(ATSI) Act. I've seen the work that they do in supporting organisations to run properly according to their own rules and culture while maintaining consistency with both state and Commonwealth laws. It's not an easy thing to do, I imagine, in terms of how you incorporate cultural law and practice from a particular mob into the tenets of an organisation as well as operating within state and Commonwealth law, not to mention, of course, the Corporations Act, which in turn would see all of these organisations regulated by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. So if those opposite have specific concerns about these organisations, I call on them to bring them to the attention of the relevant authority immediately. Take it to ORIC. Take it to the ANAO. Take it to the crime and corruption commission. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator Urquhart 231199 Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: we on this side listened respectfully when Senator Liddle made her contribution. I ask you to ask them to do the same for our speakers. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 241710 I ask all senators to be courteous to one another as they are listening to the contribution of other speakers. Senator PRATT I0T This motion before us is nothing more than another distraction from the 'no' campaign on the referendum. If you have concerns about these organisations then I want to know what you've done to bring them to the attention of the relevant authority. If you have seen a breach in the rules of an organisation then I should expect that you reported them and that we should see from ORIC and the ANAO oversight and improvement to organisations. Honourable senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 241710 Senators, it is late in the afternoon. These are sensitive debates. I have asked senators to display courtesy to one another. It is true government senators listened to the contributions of other senators in silence. If we can proceed on that basis, the chair would be much appreciative. Senator PRATT I0T In my view, land councils and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations are already subject to high levels of scrutiny and accountability. But I would also contend that, if you want to see that oversight of organisations by government and government controlled agencies improved, a good way of doing that is to support a voice to parliament so that Indigenous people right around Australia can critique organisations and have their own input through these institutions and through a voice, telling the government what they expect in terms of our oversight function. Frankly, I don't want to get in the middle of some of the family debates inside Indigenous organisations that are really highly local. You might want to bring in personal family and other issues. I've seen attempts to do that. Senator PRATT I0T No, sorry. I'll withdraw if you took that as a personal imputation. I did not mean it that way. What I'm trying to say is we do need robust governance. We need scrutiny from First Nations people who are able to bring their voice to this place, to our parliamentary committees, and tell us what kind of oversight they want for these organisations. For example, we are yet to debate, should the Voice be successful, what kinds of powers a Voice to Parliament might have. We may well decide to give it powers so that it has some direct scrutiny over these organisation. Senator PRATT I0T Well, you won't get to decide if you don't participate, Senator Thorpe. We might, in consultation with First Nations people, decide— Senator Thorpe 280304 You'll decide. Senator PRATT I0T I mean—through you, Acting Deputy President—that, collectively, the parliament might decide how it might grant powers to the Voice in order to present its concerns to the parliament and to government. We've got to work out what kinds of audit or other powers we might give it in order that it might be able to collect evidence to present to this place. I truly believe that those opposite and Senator Thorpe are more interested in playing politics than in finding solutions. I see nothing but political attacks being mounted, rather than the creativity, support or community engagement that would see us build up organisations, support their accountability, support their connection with community and support outcomes for First Nations people through self-determination through Indigenous controlled organisations. Aboriginal organisations are already subjected to high levels of scrutiny and accountability. In April this year the Central Land Council's elected deputy chair, Warren Williams, said the CLC was tired of politicians: … playing politics with the grass roots organisations our old people have built to advocate for our rights and interests. We have seen calls from these organisations, who are tired, frankly, of being attacked by members of this place in order to serve a political agenda. I understand there are legitimate or illegitimate grievances and debates that get into the accountability within organisations, but the way that you put forward as a path to resolution and engagement is nothing but a pathway to disaster and grief for organisations already under attack from the opposition. I personally support these remarks of Warren Williams: We have many good men and women who are trying hard to make our communities better places, who are desperate to be heard … He went on to say: … Senator Price's divisive approach isn't helping. For me, on this side, I want to see a priority on addressing these issues in community engagement through constitutional recognition through a voice. I want to see recognition so that we can see better outcomes in housing, in listening and in better results. I want to see the Uluru Statement from the Heart implemented. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 241710 I encourage the chamber to listen to the contributions of all senators in silence. 18:08 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I understand this is a sensitive debate and I'm not about bringing down land councils and Aboriginal organisations. I was part of the Aboriginal health service in Victoria as a first baby in that service when it was established by my grandmother. In those days, Aboriginal services were set up in the name of self-determination. In those days, organisations weren't subjected to oppressive government regimes, as they are today. Our organisations have to report to the government and adhere to the government's agenda; otherwise, they simply don't get the funding that they need to be able to run a service. I understand the importance of our services—don't get me wrong—and as a Gunnai Djab Wurrung Gunditjmara woman, I've been brought up into Aboriginal organisations and corporations. But what I have seen in the last 30 years is an industry—the black industry—and the only people who benefit from that are the government, the lawyers, the anthropologists and the mining companies. For 30 years I've been watching this. My first native title meeting in Gippsland was when I was 17, and what was happening then? The white lawyers were sitting up the front telling the elders what to say, what to do. And what did the elders do at the end of the day? They sold off our land. They negotiated a settlement agreement which allows logging. We had a white CEO who came from Parks Victoria and what did he do? He allowed all his mates in to tell our people how great logging is and they approved logging in the Central Highlands. Who benefited from that? He and his mates. What benefit did that give to the Gunnai people? Zero. In fact, it killed our totems. Corporations these days are creating a middle-class black environment that has forgotten about their poor cousins that are incarcerated, that are hungry, that are struggling to survive. We have a middle-class of blackfellas now that drive the deadly cars and have all the resources. They give a hundred bucks here and a hundred bucks there. But traditional owners on the ground, who you are hearing the statistics about, get nothing. They don't even hear about a meeting to decide on logging and gas. Traditional owners don't hear about it until a year later. Djab Wurrung trees—a million bucks for those trees, a million dollars to knock that tree down. Who benefited? One board member of a native title corporation. All the trees that got taken down along Djab Wurrung country are sitting in a garage on his property still today—still today! No-one questions that. There is no accountability, no transparency. These corporations need to be looked into. I have had board member after board member plead with me to have some kind of investigation or forensic audit on these corporations that don't care about the people that they purport to represent. People in the Latrobe Valley are so poor that we have young people stealing food from our old people and we have a deadly native title corporation up the road that is raking in millions. You want to talk about CLC? CLC didn't even allow a lawman, Ned Hargraves, who lost his nephew through a shooting at Yuendumu, through the door of a meeting, and he is a member. What do you say about that, Senator Pratt? This is ongoing and will continue to be ongoing unless we hold these corporations accountable. They must be transparent and they must tend to the needs of the people they say they represent. We have corporations that are going into deals with mining companies and with construction companies and are making an absolute fortune, which is great. But only the board members benefit or the family of the board members. Senator Stewart knows what that's all about. Her husband ran a traditional owner corporation in Victoria, and now he is on the Voice committee. It is also quite valuable to get into the perks so that you can get picked up by Labor. Most of the 'yes' people are heads of corporations and organisations that Labor pay to tell them what to say and do—disgusting behaviour. It's disgusting, Labor, and you know it. You know that your mates in the corporations and the organisations are the ones you need to sign off on the gas projects. Beetaloo basin, Greens! You want to stand up and be all deadly about saving the planet, yet you won't support a motion that stops the dirty deals from happening. Shame! Gas projects like the Beetaloo happen because Labor need them to happen, so Labor pick their black fella, who is probably hungry, and they say: 'We'll look after you. The mining company's coming, and we'll give you a car and we'll give you a couple of jobs. Just sign this. Sign this so we can frack your country.' And you benefit from that, Senator Pratt. You benefit from that, not the traditional owners at the Beetaloo and not Ned Hargraves, a lawman, a Warlpiri man, who can't even go to his own native title meetings because the CLC won't let him in the door. Before I became a politician, I did a petition for more transparency and accountability in Aboriginal organisations. There were 250 signatories to that, and a lot of them were CEOs of organisations. This has been going on for far too long, and it is the corporatisation that have killed our communities. It's also the government control and oppressive regime to pick your hand-picks, like you did with your Voice. 'Yep, there's a 'yes' man and another 'yes' man, a 'yes' woman, and we've got them in the corner because they're the CEO of the corporation or the chairperson, so we know we've got them on board. We've got this.' What was the whole Uluru dialogue business full of? Organisations and corporations. They are leaving the people behind. Do you think we would have half the troubles we have today if we could just have a piece of the pie, a piece of what these corporations are raking in on our behalf? We just want them to share, but we can't even get in the door. We have seismic testing going on on Eastern Maar country—Greens, hello—because some dodgy person signed off on a deal on behalf of the corporation and did a deal with the government and the mining company. I attended the National Native Title conference. Guess where that was? At the MCG. They had all the fandangle—I reckon it would have cost them a million bucks to put on that conference. And who turns up? The land councils, the corporations and the mining companies. The mining companies were at the National Native Title conference with their show bags, conning our people. Those corporations and organisations, they were set up for self-determining reasons, not to be controlled by government like they are. And Labor need dodgy corporations to get things over the line. Labor have demonstrated that through the dodgy Voice process. They've already demonstrated they'll leave all grassroots mobs behind and anyone who questions what they're doing. 'Just get all the "yes" people and captains picks, and we'll be right.' Well thousands and thousands of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people across this land have asked me to inquire into the land councils and the corporations. They've asked me to hold them accountable for representing them in their truest form. I went to the Macarthur River, and I met TOs there. Do you know they told me? 'We just have to do what the Northern Land Council tells us. We've got five clans here, but we've got to listen to the Northern Land Council. They're our representative, even though we don't agree with what they're saying. We hear about the meetings after they've happened. They don't send a bus for us. We don't get a notice.' And so the dodgy deal just goes ahead anyway. So don't talk to me, Labor, with your whitesplaining speeches on what you think is best for us and what your experience has been. I come from community control and I live for community control, and what is happening in land councils and corporations these days is not community control. It is not. It is so far from it that it makes me sick, let alone the thousands of blackfellas who are missing out, and watching these deadly blackfellas with their million-dollar homes while we've got homeless people living next door or sleeping next door. I'm not asking for this for the wrong reasons. And it's not what the previous Labor senator said or what the next Labor senator will say, or the Greens senators who are all opposing this, because they are 'yes' people. They are the 'yes' people. They are the ones dealing with the corporations and the organisations to get the deals done. They're not putting the people first. They don't care about self-determination or sovereignty. We need justice in all areas of our lives, and we need less government interference. We need to self-determine our own destiny, but it has got to be transparent and accountable. If we don't stop these land councils from making the wrong decisions, having whitefellas running these organisations and land councils and telling elders what to do and what to say—it's disgusting. You talk about the National Audit Office. The Audit Office itself said that there were problems in the land councils, so I don't know which page you read. We want accountability and transparency and for corruption to end so that our people get what these organisations are meant to be giving. I seek leave to move some amendments together. Leave granted. Senator THORPE 280304 I move: After paragraph (a), insert: (aa) the interactions between corporate governance of these organisations and cultural governance protocols, and challenges arising from these interactions; Omit paragraph (d), substitute: (d) the effectiveness of service delivery and ensuring community-led benefit to Traditional Owners; Paragraph (e), after "impact on the entire community", insert ", including adherence to the principles of Free, Prior and Informed Consent". Paragraph (f), omit "and any reasons for delays". 18:24 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Wow! I don't think Senator Thorpe will be upset with me for saying this, but I do think that Satan might be skiing to work today because I'm not quite sure anyone thought Senator Thorpe and I would ever be on a unity ticket. Yet here we are. Unbelievable. The contribution we heard from the ALP reinforced that—I caught up with someone not long ago who is a Voice supporter. The point they made to me in complete exasperation was that every time a 'yes' supporter opens their mouth, they actually push more people to the 'no' vote. I certainly think—and Senator Thorpe used the term, so I hope she doesn't mind me adopting it—that we heard 'whitesplaining' in condemnation of this motion and amendment put up by three Indigenous women: their motives were impugned; their reasons for doing this were somehow ill-conceived and perhaps, if they took the time to think about it and present it differently, the ALP may grant these Indigenous women the grace of supporting their motion. We know that that will never happen, because we know that Senator Liddle and Senator Nampijinpa Price are not only the wrong kind of women because they're conservative women; they're the wrong kind of Indigenous women. We know that they're the wrong kind of voice. They've been joined today by Thorpe, being brought together in a group as the wrong kind of Indigenous voice, trying to push for integrity and transparency. Does anyone else remember the federal election campaign, when this was a government that was promising integrity and transparency? That was one of their bases: 'We are going to be full of integrity when we make our decisions, and how we make those decisions is going to be transparent.' It's like the $275 we were going to get off our energy bill. It was clearly just a slogan and rhetoric. It had no meaning for them, because, from the second this government came to be, they have done nothing but show a complete lack of integrity and have done everything they can to absolutely hide the basis of their decisions and dirty deals. They demonstrate a complete lack of transparency. To Senator Liddle's point, it is absolutely time that Minister Burney stood up and took responsibility. If I hear Minister Burney, standing up, almost in floods of tears, saying once more that we need the Voice because we've got to close the gap and that all these things are so terrible—what are you doing today, Minister Burney? What have you been doing in the 16 months since you got in? You've done absolutely nothing to improve the lives of Indigenous people. You've done absolutely nothing to actually oversee any of these organisations and make sure they're delivering outcomes. Minister Burney, this is absolutely criminally culpable. If you know that there are things that need to be reformed and things that need to be done but you're sitting on your hands saying you can't do anything unless the Voice vote passes, that is absolutely criminal. If you know that there are things to be done, Minister Burney, do them today. Start getting on with the work, because we know that there are Indigenous organisations, such as land councils, that are failing to comply with what would be basic governance standards. Again, by pushing 'yes' voters into the 'no' camp, how can anyone have any trust in this Voice proposal? How can there be any basis of truth that this is a modest change, as we've heard—which we know is a fallacy? How can there be any trust among the Australian people that the Voice in our Constitution will not be just a repeat of ATSIC? We don't know. We've now heard that those opposite, buddying up with the Greens, are going to oppose any examination of the thousands of Indigenous groups that we know are failing when it comes to governance. It is absolutely extraordinary. I also just heard Senator Thorpe mention the Central Land Council and the audit report. I've got a quick snapshot of it here. What was interesting was that, when the audit council came back with what they found regarding instruments of delegation and how authorisations occurred, they said these could be improved. There's a lack of clarity as to whether the accountable authority can even delegate. We need a bit of improvement there. What we do know, which I think is even more damning, is about the CLC's arrangements in regard to the proper use and management of resources. Keep in mind that, when we talk about their resources, we're talking about $80.2 million. We're not talking about a couple of hundred grand. We're not talking about a small drop of change. We're talking about $80.2 million in 2021-22. I'm pretty sure we can assume that's got up a bit. This was distributed to traditional landholders, but who was it distributed to? How do we know who received that money? The Auditor-General's report found that their arrangements were 'largely appropriate, except for arrangements to manage the risk of fraud and conflicts of interest'. What was alluded to by Senator Pratt when she referred to 'family members' and then withdrew that because an inference was clearly being made towards another senator? When she made that inference, was she making the inference because she knows what those conflicts of interest are? She is aware that $80.2 million is not necessarily being distributed to who it should be distributed to but who it deems it might like to distribute it to. However, we don't know because we can't get to the bottom of this, even though the Auditor-General's report has come back saying that it's not up to spec. Remember those opposite talking about 'integrity and transparency'. Those things went out the window with the $275 off our electricity bills. Those things absolutely went out the window because they don't want transparency and integrity when it comes to how the Central Land Council gets to distribute $80.2 million. I can promise you it's not going to the Indigenous people it should be going to. Everybody knows that. In fact, it's absolutely insincere for anyone in this place to say that they think, hand on heart, that money is being distributed in the way it should be a hundred per cent of the time. I'd say even maybe 90 per cent of the time or maybe 60 per cent of the time. Senator Liddle, what do you reckon—through you, Chair?—maybe 10 per cent of the time? Senator Liddle 300644 Who would know? Senator HUGHES 273828 'Who would know?' And this from an Indigenous Australian who doesn't know. But don't worry, we've got Senator Pratt, who can whitesplain to us that Senator Liddle and Senator Nampijinpa Price and Senator Thorpe are incorrect in putting forward any sort of reference to look at these organisations. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 Order! Senator HUGHES 273828 You weren't whitesplained to. The whitesplaining was done over this side. Senator Stewart 299352 Aren't you now? Senator HUGHES 273828 I'm explaining to you what your colleague said, Senator Stewart. I've got to say, I've been mansplained a whole lot of times. Honourable senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 Order! Senator Stewart 299352 But you are now, right. Senator Cox 296215 Stop whitesplaining to us. Senator HUGHES 273828 I'm supporting my colleagues and Indigenous Australians— Senator Stewart 299352 That's ridiculous! Senator HUGHES 273828 They are Indigenous Australian women that are absolutely denigrated. Do you remember question time the other day? I think it was you, Senator Liddle—or was it Senator Price?—who asked a question. It was followed very quickly by a question from Senator Ciccone, to which Senator Wong responded: 'Isn't it nice to see someone who's got a genuine interest in Indigenous affairs?' What an insult! We have Senator Wong suggesting that a white man has more interest in Indigenous affairs than an Indigenous senator. What a disgrace. That just shows the absolute contempt that those opposite have. Senator HUGHES 273828 We see the 'no' voting increasing and we see the 'yes' voting going down— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 Order! Senator Pratt! Senator HUGHES 273828 I would like to thank you all for the contribution you make to the way those polls are going. Every time you dismiss Senator Nampijinpa Price or Senator Liddle and you diminish the roles of the Indigenous voices that you don't like, it actually just helps boost those in the 'no' camp. It also brings people across to the 'no' camp because they know that this will just be an absolute stitch-up by the Labor Party. Senator Thorpe was right. The people that agree with it will make sure that the rorts and the handouts and the scams continue. They don't want transparency, they don't want good governance. Imagine if we had good governance in the unions. Imagine how that'd go. Jeez, Louise! That'd be fun. Everybody would be busy for years on that. Senator Liddle and Senator Nampijinpa Price, I commend you for bringing this motion. I would urge all members who claim that it's important that we have Indigenous voices, that we hear the Indigenous voices and that we hear from Indigenous voices in the community who understand what's happening at the coalface who need to tell us what they want, that you should support this motion. 18:33 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria I am so glad that Senator Hughes wants to hear from Indigenous voices because she's about to get a couple of minutes of the best. I want to be really clear about what this is about. This motion proposed by Senator Nampijinpa Price and Senator Liddle is nothing but a witch-hunt. It is an absolute witch-hunt into our community organisations. That is what this is. Senator Hughes 273828 What are they afraid of? Senator STEWART 299352 I would question to what ends, actually? To what ends? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 Senator Stewart, my apologies, please resume your seat. Senator Hughes, cease your interjections. Honourable senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 If everyone could please cease their interjections. You have a point of order, Senator O'Sullivan? Senator 283585 I believe that was an imputation because she was inferring a motive. I think she should withdraw that last comment. Senator STEWART 299352 I'm happy to withdraw. Honourable senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 Order! Please cease the interjections across the chamber. Senator Stewart has the call. Senator STEWART 299352 I don't know about other First Nations senators in this place, but if I was to be mentioned in the same sentence as Senator Hanson I'm not sure I'd be bragging about that. But somehow it's a sense of pride on that side. Shame on them! There is already ample opportunity to scrutinise the governance and administration of key Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representative organisations. If those opposite have specific concerns they want to raise about the things they've been told are happening in these organisations, then they should immediately raise it with the appropriate authority instead of going on this witch-hunt and using the parliament to hunt down our Aboriginal organisations. It is an absolutely shameful use of this place. We just heard Senator Thorpe say, 'We need less government interference,' but she is supporting a motion which will draw Aboriginal organisations to an inquiry. What a contradiction! As my colleague Senator Pratt has already outlined, there has been an exhaustive process through estimates already. Since we came into government there have been six budget estimates hearings into Indigenous affairs. Let me set out what they are; some people might have missed it. On 11 November last year there was six hours. There was a spillover meeting on 24 November last year for three hours. There was a second spillover hearing on 12 December for 2½ hours. On Friday 17 February 2023 there was a hearing for eight hours. There was a spillover hearing on 21 March this year for almost three hours. There was a hearing on 24 May for 12½ hours. That's over 35 hours of budget estimates hearings in just 12 months—sounds like scrutiny and accountability to me. It's generated 1,080 questions on notice—sounds like scrutiny and accountability to me. And members will have the opportunity again in October, at the next estimates hearing, to ask questions—another opportunity for scrutiny and accountability. Absolutely, you should take that up. In addition to this parliament, these organisations are subject to scrutiny from other oversight bodies including: the Australian National Audit Office, with their regular review schedule; the Australian National Anti-Corruption Commission, a key election commitment by the Albanese Labor government that we have delivered on because we believe in transparency and accountability; and the Commonwealth Ombudsman. These portfolio organisations are also subject to the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. Across Australia, many of our orgs are governed by state legislation too. They are oversighted by their own parliaments and similar bodies such as state ombudsmen and state anticorruption bodies. Organisations registered under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006, the C(ATSI) Act, are also regulated by ORIC. I would like to see senators explain what they'd like to see with another layer of bureaucracy. Please explain what more you would like to see with another layer of bureaucracy that doesn't already exist for Aboriginal organisations. This is entirely a political stunt, an absolutely shameful one. If we want Aboriginal land councils, governing bodies and organisations to be the strongest they can be, we need to support them to strengthen their service delivery models in a way that best suits and serve their communities—not this stunt. If we want our nation to move forward, we will need to stand up together. We will need to stand strong together, not go on a hunt after our orgs. As the Federation of Victorian Traditional Owner Corporations and I have discussed, traditional owner corporations are already some of the most oversighted organisations in Australia. In my home state of Victoria, there are 11 formally recognised groups under various legislations—whether it be the Native Title Act, the Traditional Owner settlement act, the Aboriginal Heritage Act—covering around 75 per cent of the lands now known as Victoria. These 11 organisations are held accountable by their members, primarily, but they are also scrutinised through their annual reporting to ORIC, through elders councils and youth councils, through government funding bodies and through government funding acquittals reporting, often to multiple agencies. And that is not to mention the high level of scrutiny and questioning at native title full group meetings, at annual general meetings and the ongoing community consultation and project meetings. There are so many opportunities for accountability and transparency in their own communities—and to whatever body you want to point to. The corporations are community led. The governance boards come from the community. But these mobs want to go after them. I will say it again: this is entirely political. Why don't those opposite trust Indigenous Australians to manage our own affairs? It's a great question. I've heard, time and time again, accusations towards our organisations and towards our people that tell me that you don't trust First Nations people to manage our own affairs, including the fact that you don't want us to have a voice. We are part of cultures that are more than 65,000 years old. We've been doing it for a while; we've been governing our own communities for a while now. We are strong and we are resilient. But, whilst we are the First Peoples of this land, we are not recognised as such. You're trying to get in the way of it. And it is time that changed. We have an opportunity to do this together this year. We have an opportunity, through the referendum on a voice to parliament. I'm proud to be part of an Albanese Labor government that is committed to the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full. The first part of that asks for a voice. It's a generous invitation from First Nations people, directly to the Australian people, asking you to see us and asking you to hear us. It's an invitation those opposite can't even take up. The Uluru Statement from the Heart is the product of one of the most historically significant consultation processes in this country's history. The referendum later this year is asking for a voice to be enshrined in our Constitution, followed by a makarrata commission to oversee processes for agreement-making and truth-telling. First Nations communities across Australia have been working towards the establishment of a voice for decades. Whether it be through marching on the streets, rallies or meeting at Uluru and penning the Uluru Statement from the Heart and issuing that invitation to the Australian people, we have been calling for this for decades. It is an indictment on those opposite that they can't even accept that invitation. It's about giving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people a say on matters that affect us, across health, education, housing, jobs. I think it's pretty reasonable to expect that we might want to have a say on those things. It's about creating practical and lasting change so that our next generation doesn't inherit what I have inherited and what Senator Cox and her kids have inherited. But you don't want to do that. You don't want to accept that invitation. You are very happy for us to run on the spot and do the same thing over and over again, because you think that is acceptable. That's what First Nations people here every time you say no to the Voice—every time. A successful referendum will see us take our rightful place in our country's Constitution. It will start the process for progress in our country. That's something that should have happened a long time ago, but for multiple reasons it has not. This is the best opportunity that we have got, and you are saying no. The Voice is about recognition. It's about listening and about better results. Our communities are strong and resilient. They will withstand the political attacks of those opposite, including the one that is before the Senate today, just as they have withstood other political stunts from those opposite. Our communities are being used in wedge politics—shameful, shameful. This is another example of how they don't care about the lives of Aboriginal people, even though they pretend to by saying otherwise. In stating the obvious, this is absolutely unnecessary. I have stepped out the reasons why to the Senate today. We need to be lifting our people up, instead of tearing them down. Shame on these senators for going after our organisations who have been on the front line for our communities for decades. We on this side are on a unity ticket for progress, actually, progress for First Nations people. That is what Senator Cox and I are standing up for, and it is a shame that those opposite can't do the same. Our communities deserve better. 18:46 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I acknowledge the contributions that have been made by colleagues around the chamber in respect of this motion, and I have to say I find it disheartening that so many of the speeches, including the last one by Senator Stewart, try to attribute a motive to this motion. Nobody in this place can attribute a motive to me, which is why I am standing here. Senator Stewart quite rightly asked what else can be achieved by this process, and I think it is a very important question. She mentioned all the regulatory frameworks that exist in the oversight of Indigenous organisations, and I think she gave a pretty complete list. But it is because of the reporting of the oversight of those Indigenous corporations that I am standing here today. It is because of the performance of some of those Indigenous incorporations in estimates, which Senator Stewart also mentioned, that I started being concerned about this. In fact, it was discussed in the Senate committee that the performance of a couple of the organisations was so bad that we offered them training on attending and providing evidence to us at estimates. It was that bad, and then in estimates earlier in the year, when ORIC provided its report to us on the status of reporting by Indigenous corporations, that report said that 28 per cent of Indigenous organisations had failed to submit their financial reports for two years. When ORIC said nearly a third had failed to report for two years, I became very concerned, and that is when I drafted the first motion that was considered in this place about this matter. And why did I do that? Because clearly we weren't get the answers at estimates, one of the forums at which Senator Stewart said it should be satisfactory for us to ask questions. But clearly we weren't getting satisfactory answers. To be frank, estimates has a limited time frame. We are trying to cram the entirety of Indigenous affairs into one day, and it's not enough, which is something this chamber should consider, to be honest. But I am not going to have a motive attributed to me by anyone in this chamber as to why I want to support this motion. It is a reflection on a senator to do that, and it is disorderly. I didn't say anything during the debate, but we ought to be able to have these debates in a respectful way and not attribute a motive, so I say that I'm not here to wreck these organisations. I want them to work properly, that's why I'm standing here. That's why I'm saying what I'm saying, because I want them to work properly. These organisations, as has been mentioned on a couple of other occasions already in this discussion, are the front line of delivery. When I read these four reports from the Auditor-General on top of the advice that I've received from ORIC that 28 per cent of them haven't submitted their financials for two years or more, that they've deregistered hundreds of these organisations because they're not functioning properly, there is something clearly going wrong. I don't think there's anyone in this chamber that doesn't want to improve the circumstances for Indigenous Australians and do things like that which has been eloquently stated by those all around the chamber to improve their lives and close the gap. In government we had measures. We might have disagreed with others politically about what those measures might be, but we had measures supporting Closing the Gap. We continued the process that was set up by the Rudd government when it started the Closing the Gap process. The new government has continued that and is modifying its processes again, as appropriate. I think Senator Stewart actually belled the cat when she went on to talk about the Voice. This is all about not wanting anything to disrupt the process of the Voice. Effectively what the government's saying to us in that sense is, 'We can't do anything in this place to improve the lot of Indigenous Australians until we get the Voice referendum sorted out.' That's the bottom line. But when you read what's in these reports from the Auditor-General, there are four so far, with another one to come. There's one for the Northern Land Council that hasn't been published yet. That's during the next couple of weeks. The audit report from the Central Land Council is probably the best of them, I have to say, and I'll give them credit for that. In the snapshot it says the Central Land Council's governance arrangements under the various acts are largely effective. That's a pleasing thing to hear. There are some issues around instruments of delegation, but that's not actually a matter for the land councils. That's a matter for government to fix, and government should get on to do that. We would support that, I'm sure. But where I do become concerned is where it says: … arrangements to promote the proper use and management of resources under the PGPA Act are largely appropriate, except for arrangements to manage risk of fraud and conflicts of interest. As has been said, these organisations handle a lot of money. This organisation handles over $100 million. If I go to the Tiwi Land Council and the audit report there—in response to the Auditor-General's report, the Central Land Council has agreed to all recommendations except for a part of one. Quite frankly I think they should reconsider their consideration of that last one. If I go to the Tiwi Land Council, the governance arrangements are only partly effective. The Tiwi Land Council's arrangements to promote proper use and management of resources under the PGPA Act are largely inappropriate. That's what rings alarm bells for me. I'm not here because I want to have a go or get at anybody, I just want to see these organisations operating effectively. Again, the Tiwi Land Council has accepted the recommendations—tick, well done. This process is a part of the process to improve their governance. That's what we're for. That's what we want to do, too. But the other thing a Senate inquiry will bring that estimates doesn't bring or that ORIC doesn't bring, is the opportunity for other people outside, parts of the Indigenous community, to make representations to the Senate inquiry and have their voice heard. That's what's missing from Senator Stewart's presentation—that this committee can receive evidence from the land councils, and we welcome that and we will talk to them at estimates again, but we can hear representations from outside. And I find it really hard to understand why we can't start fixing things that need fixing now—we have to put it off—unless it's about the Voice. I go to the Anindilyakwa Land Council. The audit report found: The ALC's governance arrangements under the ALRA and PGPA Act are partly effective. There's a similar issue with respect to delegation functions. Again, that's not a fault of the Indigenous corporation. This is an issue of differences between state and Commonwealth acts, which need to be cleaned up, and I'm sure the government will be on that. The report states: The ALC's governance arrangements under the ALRA are partly effective. The ALC's arrangements to promote the proper use and management of resources under the PGPA Act are partly appropriate. It goes on to make a number of recommendations, largely agreed to by the Anindilyakwa Land Council. But recommendation 10 triggers concern for me, because this is an area where we hear levels of concern. Recommendation 10 reads: The Anindilyakwa Land Council strengthen the royalty equivalents distribution process … And the council disagrees with that. They may have very good reasons for that. I'm very happy to hear from them and they will probably get asked about that at estimates, too. That's a concerning matter for me. That's why I'm standing here. I've got four audit reports from the ANAO saying there are issues with governance of these organisations. I've got ORIC saying to me that 28 per cent of them haven't submitted documents for two years. What would happen if ASIC submitted a report to the government saying that 28 per cent of corporations hadn't submitted their financial documents for two years? Why is it that Indigenous communities don't have the same level of oversight? I made the same point yesterday in respect of an aged care bill, where the government took out the governance requirements for aged-care providers for Indigenous aged-care providers. Why do Indigenous Australians deserve to have fewer governance requirements in their aged-care facilities than everybody else? I simply do not understand this. That's my motive. I want people in residential aged care to get high-quality aged care, whether they're Indigenous, migrant, Australian or whatever. And I want communities around this country to have organisations servicing them that work properly. It's not that complicated. There's no other motive—not for me. That's why I'm standing here. I've got four audit reports with another one coming, and I'm expecting it to say similar things. And ORIC, the organisation that does the assessments, is providing concerning results with respect to its oversight. So the oversight process is raising flags. What tools do I have in my role in this place to look at it deeper? I can continue to ask questions at estimates—Senator Stewart is right—but there are other people who are also seeking a voice in this. Their voices are being represented by Senator Liddle, Senator Nampijinpa Price and others in this debate, and their voices won't be heard unless we have this inquiry. Their voices won't be heard. That's the thing that's missing from Senator Stewart's discussion. I go to the NIAA. This is an organisation that's handing out hundreds of millions of dollars. The concerning thing here for me is that the NIAA undertakes few proactive detection activities with relation to potential fraud. Effectively, what they have is a set-and-forget—hand the money out, expect that it will be done properly. That would be fine if everything was working well. But it is a set-and-forget process, unless somebody complains. That is the only reason they will have a look at something. I mean, the point for me in this whole process is for the Senate to have a genuine inquiry into the governance and operation of these organisations, to make recommendations to support these organisations to serve their communities. This is where the rubber hits the road. This is where we can start making improvements right now. I don't understand why people wouldn't support that process, because it is about improving things for Indigenous Australians right away. There is a mounting pile of evidence to say things aren't right as they are, so let's improve them. Let's go about a proper process, talk to people, give them the opportunity to say their piece. Let members of all of these communities give their evidence, have their voice heard by the Senate and undertake a sensible inquiry process. That is why I'm standing here; that is why I am on my feet today. I don't want anything else. I want Indigenous Australians to get the best, I want to improve things for them and I want to play my part in doing that. 19:01 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia The Australian Greens will not be supporting the circulated amendment of Senator Thorpe. I don't think there is enough time in my 15 minutes for me to run through how disappointing this debate has been, to have laid bare on the floor of the chamber tonight some of the grandstanding that has happened in this place. The personal attacks on individuals should have stayed outside the door—on all sides. This is about an issue. Senator COX 296215 Thank you, Senator Hanson, I'll take that interjection because, respectfully, we have all been heard in silence, so I would appreciate you doing the same. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 Order! Senator Hanson. Senator Cox, resume your seat. I listened carefully while Senator Colbeck was speaking. He was able to be heard in silence for the full 15 minutes. I ask everyone to show the same courtesy to Senator Cox. Senator Cox, you have the call. Senator COX 296215 Thank you, Acting Deputy President. We know that this system is not perfect. Do you know how we know the system is not perfect? It is because I raised these questions during the last Senate estimates. Senator Colbeck, in fact, was in that Senate estimates. He came and spoke to me after about me raising the issue of the complaint dispute resolution mechanism that is in place for ORIC. Those organisations are under the regulator for the fact that they haven't complied with some of the changes under the Native Title Act. This was the issue I raised. It is particular for our Aboriginal corporations, our PBCs. It is like an empty box—it is sitting there, waiting to be used. We come into this place and listen to this motion with people saying 'we've got all these complaints'. Well, what have you done with them? Where have you taken them to? Where have you directed people? And what makes you think that people who don't use a complaints mechanism are then going to come to your inquiry? What makes you think that they are capable of doing that? Are you going to hold all in camera sessions to protect everybody? No, because you are talking about public transparency. Now, Senate estimates is a great time for you all to get your grabs for socials, or even come in here have some of those great moments where you can tell people you're doing things about transparency and accountability. Let me tell you that that's the job of the regulator. It is not the job of the Senate to look at that governance, those processes and those policies. It will be two years next month that I've been in this place, and I've attended Senate estimates and cross-portfolio in the Finance and Public Administration Committee. Not one senator from that side has talked about AICD governance training or Indigenous governance training to any land council or PBC in that forum. Not one of them has raised these issues directly with them. They've brought their personal issues and their letters that haven't been tabled before they go into conversation. And they come into this place with this motion. It is ridiculous. It's a heated-up version of the one that we saw last time. This chamber is the chamber of scrutiny, yes. But I don't believe that we should be running around, putting in another level of bureaucracy—as Senator Stewart already said—and getting down into the weeds. That's what we are doing. It is a witch-hunt. I am really grateful that Senator Liddle, in the briefing of this motion, talked to me about the Australian National Audit Office. Senator Colbeck and others have quoted some of those reports. The independent reports quote the governance and acts that they're already governed under. There's the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. Senator Pratt mentioned these too. There's the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 for Northern Territory organisations and there's the Native Title Act 1993. Senator Pratt, Senator Stewart and others have also talked about those independent mechanisms. It's not just ORIC; the NIAA also have a feedback and complaints mechanism to cover the fraud aspects. There's also the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Let's go first to that particular report from the Australian National Audit Office into the governance of the Central Land Council. This report has 11 recommendations, and some of them are specific to governance. One recommendation is aimed at documenting governance arrangements relating to accountable authority. Four of them are aimed at improving governance arrangements under the ALRA. Six are aimed at improving governance arrangements such as the PGPA Act. This report talks about the wording—and Senator Liddle did mention this—around being 'largely effective'. 'Largely effective' means that it is effective. It's working. There is always room for quality improvement, and that is something that the CLC has agreed to. They agreed to 10 of those 11 recommendations, and they partly agreed to one of those recommendations. Is it that they failed to mention that or is it that they selectively excluded the fact that these land councils and organisations have accepted the fact that things are not perfect? It's not 10 out of 10, right?—or 10 out of 11, in this instance—and they are willing to work on the recommendations. They are willing to listen. They are willing to put in the effort. As Senator Pratt has already said, as the chair of that committee, they travel down here and they sit and listen, or, when people decide to turn up and be in the room, they endure some of the absolute nonsense that is dished up in their direction. The fact is that the Australian National Audit Office is and has been auditing all of the Northern Territory land councils and has done four reports—someone mentioned that there were three; there are actually four, so I want to correct that. It has audited the NIAA. We'll hear many, many issues around the NIAA. I think Senator Farrell said today during question time that it's been 15 months that we've had a new government. Well, then, I would look across to the other side of the chamber and say: what did you do in your decade in power to help our Aboriginal organisations? What did you do to make sure that you were scrutinising the governance of those organisations? You did nothing. You looked the other way. This will double up the work that is already being done by the independent authority. I can't see how it's going to provide any recommendations or uncover any information that's not already covered under these audits with timeliness. Timeliness is what they talked about on that side during their contributions. I'm not denying that this is not perfect. We're not saying it is perfect. There is a change of guard in some of these organisations regularly, on their boards, so I don't know how much attention people are paying. There has to be an investment in training for those people, in mentoring, in making sure that we are doing our job properly at this end to encourage and support. But I don't see that happening with this motion. If senators from the opposition want to bring any amendments to the acts that govern some of the issues that have been raised in those reports, I'd be more than happy to carefully consider them. I remind this chamber of recommendation 7 of the A way forward report into the Juukan Gorge incident. This recommendation has been accepted by this government. I think this is a golden opportunity to allow the government to do what they're going to do in relation to it. This recommendation states: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government establish an independent fund to administer funding for prescribed body corporates (PBCs) under the Native Title Act 1999. Recommendation 4 of the same report pertains to reviewing of the Native Title Act, and it reads: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government review the Native Title Act 1993 with the aim of addressing inequalities in the negotiating position of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the context of the future act regime. The recommendation also sets out that there should be particular focus on the right to negotiate; replacement of the applicant; operation of the National Native Title Tribunal; free, prior and informed consent; gag clauses; and the setting out of the authority and responsibilities of those PBCs. Both of those recommendations are very clear and have already been accepted by this government. The government have already accepted that they will put them in train. And then we get a motion in this place trying to unhinge that, not allowing the government to do their job. Lastly, instead of pursuing personal witch-hunts—as I have seen in this debate and in my time here in the Senate and, in particular, in the cross-portfolio Senate estimates, the very tactic that Senator Stewart talked about is the 'no' campaign. This motion comes with little good faith, as far as I'm concerned. This motion comes wrapped up with people being against our PBCs. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 Senator Cox, resume your seat. Senator O'Sullivan, do you have a point of order? Senator O'Sullivan 283585 I do. I believe that that statement just then was impugning the motives of the movers of this motion. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 Senator Cox, you made reference to the motivations of people moving the motion. Senator COX 296215 I am happy to withdraw, because clearly some people are sensitive about it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 Senator Cox, you chose to withdraw, which the Senate appreciates, but, given that you chose to withdraw, please do so without qualification. You have the call, Senator Cox. Senator COX 296215 I believe Senator O'Sullivan has another contribution. Is that why he has stood? I'm just clarifying. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 Senator McKenzie, please resume your seat. Senator Cox, you did choose to withdraw, but you didn't do so without qualification. I just ask you to do that. You have the call. Senator COX 296215 Great. Thank you. There is a witch-hunt that is currently wrapped up in this motion about PBCs that has come before the Senate. We should be turning our minds much more to supporting our PBCs and our Aboriginal organisations, helping them to understand what corporate governance looks like and their responsibilities and their duties. But it is not our job in this place to create a system that only fits one size. What has been a conversation piece over and over in this place and is actually worded in this motion is cultural governance protocols and their intersection with corporate governance. This is a system that has been created by the mainstream. It hasn't been created by us. Corporate governance is not our language. There is not a translation for that in my language in the two clan groups that I'm part of, in the Noongar and Yamatji areas. It's not a thing. Cultural protocols and governance are. It's about respect. It's about understanding who our old people are, who we consult with, what we're there to protect and when we work collectively in the best interests of our people. The compliance driven system wasn't created by us. We have one of the oldest systems in the world. In my part of Noongar country—I proudly live on the lands of the Wajuk people, but I'm connected to two groups, which are the Yuat people north-east of Perth and the Kaniyang people in the great southern area of Western Australia—our traditional systems have been proven to have been there for 30,000 years. It is the High Court determination that allowed that to be proven. Corporate governance has to be taught to our people. I spent my time in the gnalla kaartdijin position in the leadership centre, when the native title determination for the Noongar claim was determined. My job was to look at how I could bring some of that AICD training into its translation, into succession planning by having our old people doing the business and our young people sitting behind being educated—our lawyers, our accountants, our people who had interest, our young people that were going to come up and take over. That was my job, to make sure that they were fully trained. I did that because I understood what the Western system required for accountability. But we should be asking the NIAA and government departments how they are walking beside some of our PBCs when they make the transition from land councils to prescribed body corporates in this country to help them manage their own affairs under self-determination and be able to do that work. We should not be wanting to bring them into another Senate inquiry that is driven from a different perspective and that has an already sketchy relationship determined through this committee. 19:18 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I move: That the question be now put. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 The question in front of the chamber is that the question be now put on Senator Thorpe's amendments. A division having been called, the division will be held on the Senate's resumption tomorrow. Senator Whish-Wilson, you're seeking the call? Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 A point of order: Senator Cox had the good grace to withdraw her comment, but can I ask that you check with the Clerk of the Senate as to whether she did impugn the motives of the Senate? We're politicians and we talk about political motives. I don't believe that should have been something that was withdrawn. I just ask if perhaps you can review that. It's a very clear political motivation. It wasn't a personal imputation; it was a political imputation. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 Thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson. You've made your point. If the record needs to be corrected in any way, it can be. Thank you. Environment and Communications References Committee 107 Reference 107 19:21 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 Senator Scarr? Senator Scarr 282997 I would like to take a point of order in relation to Senator Hanson-Young's amendment. I'm quite happy for this to be taken on notice and considered overnight. My point of order relates to standing order 93 in relation to how amendments to a notice of motion must be relevant. While I appreciate that that has been liberally— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 Senator Scarr, resume your seat. I'm getting advice from the Clerk that the motion has already been moved and that this is not an appropriate point in the program. You needed to raise it at the time it was moved. That's the advice, as you can see, I've had from the Clerk. I ask you to resume your seat. Senator Barbara Pocock? 19:22 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia I move: That the question be now put. 19:21 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 The question in front of the chamber is that the question be now put. A division having been called, it will be held tomorrow given the time. BILLS 108 BILLS Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Dental Patients and Other Measures) Bill 2023 108

Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Dental Patients and Other Measures) Bill 2023

In Committee 108 19:26 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Being in continuation and noting that we've got three minutes left before 7.30, I will move very quickly. Basically, these requests for amendments would allow for 26 sessions of speech pathology within any period of 12 months, acknowledging the importance of this over the lifetime and for individual needs. I call on the government and the coalition to make this a priority and support these requests for amendments before the chamber today. 19:26 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania The purpose of the bill is to remove age restrictions from the cleft scheme, an important amendment in its own right, rather than propose new MBS items. For this reason, the government will not be supporting the proposed requests for amendments. There is a separate process already underway to consider expanding allied health speech services for patients with serious speech language disorders following recommendations from the MBS primary care task force. This will allow the normal due process for consideration of MBS amendments, including a consultation process with the sector to settle implementation details, such as appropriate eligibility, definitions, numbers of sessions and required fees, consultation with the Medical Services Advisory Committee, MSAC, and consideration of financial implications in our budget process. I understand the process of consultation and engagement with the sector is well underway, and there are also separate MBS benefits currently available for allied health services, including speech pathology for patients under chronic disease management and team care arrangements initiated by general practitioners. Cleft patients maybe be able to access these services. Eligible patients can access up to five MBS related allied health services per year via these arrangements. States may also provide public speech therapy services. So, for these reasons, as I've outlined, we will not be supporting the requests for amendments on sheet 1922. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 252157 The question is that the requests for amendments be agreed to. A division having been called, the division will be held tomorrow. Progress reported. ADJOURNMENT 108 ADJOURNMENT Member for Leichhardt 108 19:29 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland As senators and members, we're all elected here to represent and fight for our communities. When I say 'fight for', I don't mean 'fight against'. But, unfortunately, last week the member for Leichhardt, Mr Warren Entsch, made some very serious and substantiated claims about leaders in his very own community. My Queensland colleague Cynthia Lui MP and I are very concerned about these disturbing developments in the context of two things I want to talk to the Senate about tonight: Mr Entsch's own questionable conduct and his failure to deliver to the community he represents. Let me go to that conduct, and I want to preface this by saying that these matters are all on the public record. It's just a matter of whether you think this behaviour is appropriate or not. On 16 June 2023 it was reported: Veteran Queensland Liberal MP Warren Entsch organised for a billionaire Liberal National Party donor to jump the queue and fly to the Torres Strait to have a Pfizer Covid jab … … … … An investigation by The Weekend Australian has confirmed Mr Entsch called Torres Strait health authorities in July 2021 to arrange for Cairns-based Mr Sekler to get the Pfizer Covid vaccination on Thursday Island, where it was being rolled out to protect the residents of the vulnerable region. Queensland Health has now referred this matter to the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission. This is what I'm talking about in terms of conduct. On 19 June, the Australian also reported that in 2019 a company called YLE Enterprises, trading as Empowering Women, Empowering Communities, which is wholly owned and directed by the LNP candidate for Cairns, Mrs Entsch, received a $200,000 grant from the Morrison government's Indigenous languages and arts program to teach pottery in the remote Queensland Aboriginal community of Doomadgee. This grant in and of itself is concerning. But what is also concerning is that reports soon followed that, in 2020, Mr Entsch gave that very same company a $1,000 taxpayer funded grant from the NAIDOC Week grants that he was able to distribute in his electorate. The member for Leichhardt announced $16,000 worth of grants in a press release saying the cash had been provided to help celebrate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander excellence. And, as we know, further reporting on 23 June confirmed one of Mr Entsch's taxpayer funded staffers who did his personal bookwork from his home office was also at the time working as an executive officer for YLE Enterprises, trading as Empowering Women, Empowering Communities. This is all too reminiscent of past conduct of the same member. I couldn't help but remember a Cairns Post article from 22 March 2018 in which it was reported that Mr Entsch appointed his election campaign manager to head the Regional Jobs and Investment Packages committee panel to identify key priorities of a $20 million federal grant to stimulate jobs, growth and investment in the region, but, funnily enough, wouldn't you know it, the committee awarded a $2 million grant of funds to a pharmacy distribution facility where the same election campaign manager's partner was listed as a director. This conduct is incredibly disturbing. It shows a concerning pattern of behaviour. On top of this questionable conduct, what is also concerning is the member for Leichhardt's record in this parliament. Mr Entsch voted against the Housing Australia Future Fund, a bill that would build more social and affordable housing, including making urgent repairs on rural and remote Indigenous housing—something that was promised by his government but never delivered. He has voted against energy bill relief, and there are 4,000 people in Cairns who received a robodebt letter who have never received an apology from Mr Entsch. And, as former Special Envoy for the Great Barrier Reef, Mr Entsch voted against climate change legislation, even though thousands of people in Far North Queensland rely on the Great Barrier Reef. As I said at the beginning of this contribution, I take this very seriously and I take very seriously someone in a position of power making a very serious and unsubstantiated claim against members of their own community while at the same time displaying such questionable and repeated terrible conduct. Perhaps if Mr Entsch had to spend less time defending his own conduct he would be able to make more time to listen to his community and deliver for them. Senator Lambie 250026 Hear, hear! The PRESIDENT 112096 Before we continue: Senator Lambie, it is incredibly disorderly to interject when you are not even in the body of the chamber. Economy 109 19:35 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia When the Reserve Bank paused its interest rate hikes last week, long-suffering Australian families across the country breathed a sigh of relief. However, no-one was more relieved than the Treasurer, whose high-wire act with the Australian economy has been an abysmal failure. As always, the devil is in the detail, and any reading of the RBA's recent decision to hold interest rates can only conclude that more pain is likely on the way. In its decision the RBA said: Some further tightening of monetary policy may be required to ensure that inflation returns to target in a reasonable timeframe … The Board remains resolute in its determination to return inflation to target and will do what is necessary to achieve that. The board also reiterated: Wages growth has picked up in response to the tight labour market and high inflation. At the aggregate level, wages growth is still consistent with the inflation target, provided that productivity growth picks up. That's the key point. Yet despite the RBA saying that its forecast for CPI inflation won't be back to within target band until late 2025, here we are on the eve of the government's latest round of Whitlamesque intervention in the economy. Rather than growing labour productivity, the government wants to grow union membership. Rather than addressing the real areas in the economy that need macroeconomic reform, the government seeks to address how to strengthen unfettered trade union involvement in the workplace. These pending new industrial relations laws are not warranted, nor are they supported by the facts. The government has not adequately proven its economic rationale for introducing these radical new IR laws, beyond its hyperfixation, its obsession, with ensuring its traditional owners are appeased—not forgetting, of course, the upcoming ALP National Conference. In short, this bill will be a solution looking for a problem. It doesn't address how to grow productivity. It's just utopian ideology on how to grow one lever of the economy, which, when isolated from productivity gains, will have a pernicious impact on the wider economy. If anything, some key stakeholders are claiming that the proposed provisions of the bill are in fact antiproductive. Last week, during his address to the National Press Club, the CEO of the Australian Industry Group, Innes Willox, said: The link with productivity is the key—the more productive we are the more we can be substantially compensated. That clear link to productivity is what is missing in these latest workplace proposals and in the consultations around them. No real, demonstrated productivity benefit is ever given. The Productivity Commission has flagged how to improve and grow labour productivity: through education, digital technology, infrastructure, skills and training, and taxation reform, just to name a few. With the services sector increasingly dominating our economy, this sector also provides the greatest opportunity for productivity improvement, and the Productivity Commission in its Advancing prosperity report has identified several key pillars to delivering this. If the Albanese government is serious about tackling high inflation, it cannot continue to ignore the importance of productivity in our economy. We know that if productivity improvement is left unaddressed the pain caused by high inflation will become normalised. Worse, it will eat away at any wage gains that can be made. Put simply, families will never feel like they're getting ahead, and they're certainly feeling that now. Even the RBA acknowledged this in their recent decision, when they said: … if high inflation were to become entrenched in people's expectations, it would be very costly to reduce later, involving even higher interest rates and a larger rise in unemployment. The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations is very fond of using slogans, one-liners and 10-second sound bytes; however, to benefit the national interest, he needs to begin talking about labour productivity. You don't hear those words come from his mouth. He needs to talk about that and about how his government has a plan to fix it, not impede it, and how they plan to pivot in the direction where the national prosperity is shared by all and not just by the barrackers of the narrow sectional interests of his political party's traditional owners, the trade union movement. Ukraine 110 19:40 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I want to talk again about Australia's willingness to help Ukraine's fight for its freedom against the bully boy Russia. When this war started, most observers thought it would be over quickly. Some experts even said that Ukrainians themselves will be divided. But I tell you what, that hasn't been the case, has it—talk about resilience! Australia and the world have seen the extraordinary strength and courage of the Ukrainian people. This war has been going on for a year and a half now. When it started most of the world quickly came to the aid of Ukraine, including Australia. To date, we have sent Ukraine Bushmasters, trucks, trailers, ammunition and humanitarian assistance. I know how grateful Ukraine is for this help because the ambassador told me and because I get feedback from veterans who have some of their own friends over in Ukraine. They have also told me that Ukraine needs more support. In early June, Ukraine launched its counteroffensive. On 23 June, the Australian government announced it was sending more armoured vehicles, more ammunition and a plane to get humanitarian aid to Ukraine. At the time, the Prime Minister said that this latest package showed that Ukraine can count on Australia and that, 'Australia is unwavering in our resolve to condemn and oppose Russia's actions and to help Ukraine achieve victory.' Months into their counteroffensive, the Ukrainians are fighting hard but it is getting tough for them. CNN reported this morning that US and Western officials briefed on the latest intelligence are increasingly worried about Ukrainian forces' ability to retake significant territory. Last Tuesday, White House national security coordinator, John Kirby said, 'Even the Ukrainians have said that they are not going as far or as fast as they would like to like.' And on Sunday, the President of Ukraine said, 'It is very difficult to be fighting such a long time, which is obvious. All this is very difficult when you lack this or that equipment.' I am asking the Australian government to consider, seriously consider, sending 100 Hawkeis to Ukraine as soon as possible. We must do what we can to help Ukraine stand up to this bully. Against all odds, the people of Ukraine have turned the Russians back in critical battles, and Ukrainians have suffered and continue to suffer great losses. But you are not going to break their spirit. You won't break their spirit. They are winning these battles that everybody expected them to lose, that everybody wrote them off about. We have to keep backing the Ukrainian people. We cannot take our foot off the pedal. Now is not the time to take our foot off the pedal, and we cannot let the bully boys win. We cannot let Russia win. The fight is not just Ukraine's; the fight is a fight for the rules based order, for freedom and democracy, and we all know what happens when you don't stand up to a bully. You have to draw a line and say, 'Enough is enough'. I think we should have to do more. We can send more Bushmasters and, more importantly, Hawkeis. The Hawkei is a lightweight protected mobility vehicles. It provides blast and ballistic protection while offering superior elements of command and control. It is Australian made, and we should be proud of that. Don't be scared to send it over there and show it off, show our might. It is fast, it is powerful and—by God—it is versatile. I know for a fact that sending just 100 of those Hawkeis to Ukraine will help their efforts enormously. I'm told the greatest risk to Ukraine is not its people losing their spirit; the greatest risk is a lack of will and continued support from Western countries like Australia. We have to meet keep moving along with this. As soon as we start dragging our feet, as soon as we start weakening our support and the Western countries do too, that is it—they are under; they're finished. I do not want to be providing protection and support for another country and watching it go down the gurgler. It is a joke. We're either in there at full capacity and behind them or we are not. But if we start going in there half-pregnant then the hope, the will and the resilience of those people will go downhill and everything we have done so far will be a waste. Have we not learnt that from being in the Middle East for 20 years? We've got to start helping them all—we just have to. Democracy 111 19:45 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia One of the acute lessons we are learning this century is that the democracy that so many of us have enjoyed can no longer be taken for granted. Democracy is fragile. It is a work in progress. It is not something that we can set and forget. Our democracy is built on trust in institutions, on trusted information and on a level of trust in those of us in this building who govern for the country. As a member of the Joint Senate Committee on Electoral Matters, I have been participating in the inquiry into the conduct of the 2022 federal election. One area of inquiry is how we approach the issues of misinformation and disinformation. They are becoming more and more common and having an impact—a negative impact—on our electoral contests. In a world where anyone for free can advertise on Facebook, TikTok, X or any other platform, our challenge is ensuring we have a well-informed electorate by ensuring that the information put out there is accurate. But the problem we face is not a lack of information. There is plenty of information out there about all sorts of things, and not all of it is accurate. The challenge is ensuring that, when we're looking at our electoral system, the information that is provided—information that is perpetuated and proliferated out there to the voting public—is accurate, honest, and transparent. And this is a far cry from the world of, say, 30 years ago where the effort to engage in political advertising was much more challenging and much less accessible. The increased accessibility that we enjoy and the information flow that is available can be a really good thing. It does mean more diverse opinions and perspectives, and it can mean a greater engagement in our democracy. But what it should never mean and what we need to guard against is more emotive and incorrect information being used to artificially sway votes. Misinformation and disinformation in Australia have already been sent to target minority and disadvantaged groups more intensely and is often seen to be backed by big money and done with an intent to change electoral outcomes in a bad way. Often this information is not based on honesty and not based on the genuine values or opinions of those standing for election. As a South Australian I want to raise a point about the legislation that we have in South Australia and have had since the eighties, which is legislation to counter inaccurate and misleading material. The Electoral Commission of South Australia can act on any material brought to their attention within an election period that contains a statement purporting to be fact if it is both misleading and inaccurate in a material way. They can act to impose a fine or request that the material not be further published or that the inaccurate or misleading statement be publicly retracted. For example, if you've sent out 50,000 letters and they contain something that is indeed misleading and/or inaccurate, you can be made to send out another 50,000 letters to say that you were not correct in what you had asserted. It has a huge impact on how elections are run in South Australia, which is a good thing. Since the eighties, when it was introduced, everyone has come to a place where they are mindful about the information that they put out into the public domain, partly because the good people of South Australia believe in democracy and believe in honesty and truthfulness and partly because the legislation that we have in place is a huge disincentive. The disincentive to participants in our elections claiming things they know to be false nips that misinformation in the bud. We know that it works in South Australia. The sky has not fallen in, everybody seems to rub along quite well with it and we have a healthy, thriving democracy. It is a simple proposition, and one that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has put forward in their interim report. It is just one of the steps that we can take in restoring the faith in our democracy and restoring the faith and trust in politics, which is a responsibility that we all have. I look forward to continuing that work and gaining the support of all my colleagues in this chamber. Domestic and Family Violence 112 19:50 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia I rise today to highlight the epidemic of domestic and family violence. First and foremost, I encourage victims-survivors, witnesses and perpetrators to seek help—and to do so early. Physical and mental abuse, coercive control and sexual violence are not easy subjects to talk about, but it's important for us to become more comfortable in starting a conversation about these things. On average, one woman a week is killed by a partner or former partner. On Monday, a Perth mother of two died, allegedly at the hands of her partner. While this parliament was on its winter break and we were away, another nine lives were lost: on 5 July, a young mother of three was found dead inside her former partner's South Sydney home; on 6 July a 46-year-old woman died with stab wounds to her back on a Northern Territory remote community; on 11 July a woman was killed in Sydney's Rooty Hill; on 15 July a 47-year-old woman was killed by a blunt weapon at a bush camp near Alice Springs; on 15 July in my home state of South Australia a woman was shot and another wounded; on 21 July there were three counts of murder, including a domestic violence charge, following a multi-car crash in Queensland; on 26 July in Perth a woman was shot dead outside her home. There have already been 39 Australian women killed and nine children lost this year. In many of these cases, the trial process is underway. In South Australia, 40 per cent of homicides are family and domestic violence related—yes, you are more likely to be murdered by someone you know, not by a stranger. We all must remember that statistics are not just numbers; they are grandmothers, children, families, households in pain, lives crippled by violence. The effects last long after the violence has been perpetrated. As shadow minister for child protection and the prevention of family violence, I make this urgent plea for the Albanese government to do more in prevention, especially if you wish to 'end violence in a generation'—a defining statement in your 10-year National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children. In this chamber in February, Labor senator Jess Walsh said, 'We promised before the election that we would make women's safety a national priority, and we have.' But that's not what I'm hearing or seeing, and I talk to people working on the front lines. Where are the five-year action plans that were due for release in early 2023? Where is the dedicated Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander action plan? It's terrific to see family violence leave recently coming into effect, and I look forward to seeing the impact it has for those escaping violence, but, again, prevention is what this sector needs, and it's what families need. The Albanese government needs to stop telling us what is going on and start acting. Their promise of 500 frontline workers has not been delivered—not a single new worker. And what about those promised positions? We've been told the actual amount of funding only allows, in some places, for entry level roles like cleaning, driving and reception. They need skilled professional workers to work through complex issues. In South Australia, 279,000 women, 39 per cent of the population, have experienced sexual or physical violence, and there has been a 10 per cent increase in domestic violence. In the NT, the increase is a staggering 26 per cent. In one week in June this year, NT police attended 597 domestic violence incidents. Another state gripped by family violence is Western Australia. From July to March, there were 25,116 offences. That's one report every 12 minutes. In every state and territory there's a similar story—all report increases in family violence. The statistics indicate just how dire the urgent need for action is. Every state has a different reporting model, different definitions and different time lines. A national transparent data system with all states supplying information is missing. Such a step would allow a strategic approach to assist families, giving the ability to know what is happening on the ground, provide assistance and respond much more quickly and effectively. That leads me to another point. I've taken every opportunity to meet frontline workers and service providers assisting children and families. What I'm hearing is exhaustion: burnout and a workforce at its wits' end in trying to find staff, adequate resources and certainty. They look forward to getting those workers into their workforce. These organisations and services are experiencing never-ending difficulty in, firstly, keeping up with the increasing need. Even though the promise was 500 more workers, they're not sure where they are going to find them. Then there is the ideological position, which is just not logical. In Central Australia, the clientele of the women's shelter is over 90 per cent local Indigenous women. In fact, I spoke to a local sector person today who said that that figure is probably 100 per cent. The shelter has not even been actively engaged in conversation in relation to the emergency money—yes, the $250 million for community safety—that was rushed into Central Australia, because, it would seem, they're not an Aboriginal community controlled organisation. It's not logical; it's ideological. (Time expired) Yothu Yindi Foundation 113 19:55 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia Tonight I want to talk about the incredible work of the Yothu Yindi Foundation. Established in 1990, the Yothu Yindi Foundation promotes the cultural development of the Yolngu nation and the community leaders and knowledge holders of five clan groups. Yothu Yindi refers to the child-mother relationship, symbolising balance and harmony, as having a special place in Yolngu culture. A core mission of the Yothu Yindi Foundation is equality between First Nations people and non-First Nations people. This foundation works in the running of the annual Garma Festival. Garma is the largest gathering of First Nations people and culture in the country. This year's theme was djambatj, which the Yolngu people refer to as a vision of perfection. Last weekend I had the honour of joining thousands of people, including Minister Burney, the Prime Minister, Senator McCarthy, Marion Scrymgour, Gordon Reid and many others at Gulkula for the annual Garma Festival. This year was the first Garma Festival since the passing of Yolngu elder Dr Yunupingu. His legacy was honoured beautifully throughout the weekend through art, dance, song and story-telling. I want to thank the Gumatj traditional owners for being so welcoming to all of us, for letting us tread lightly on their country and for sharing their culture and knowledge with us. Throughout the weekend I was honoured to have so many conversations with First Nations people from right across the country. I've learnt so much from events such as these. They are such important events for all of us to come together, catch up and yarn about our community, and there is certainly a lot to yarn about. That's why having these meetings on country is so important. It is a chance not only for us to reconnect and ground ourselves in country and culture but also for First Nations people to share our rich and beautiful culture with the rest of the country. This location is where the fresh water meets the salt water. Cultural knowledge that was on display last weekend has been passed down from our old people, and we continue the sacred tradition of knowing and sharing with the next generation of our children and their children through festivals such as Garma. Putting on an event like this is a huge effort. I want to thank the Yothu Yindi Foundation and congratulate them on this—in particular, Denise and Sean. It is far from the only work that they do. The Yothu Yindi Foundation also runs the Dilak Council. I had the pleasure of meeting and are having dinner with some of those on the council, which brings together senior cultural leaders of the 13 clans in a formal decision-making body based on traditional governance and self-determination. They also run an empowered communities initiative and the Garma Institute, which has worked for years towards establishing a world-class education hub in north-east Arnhem Land. This dream came true over the weekend, as the Prime Minister announced funding for such a facility. This will be a game changer for the region and will offer culturally appropriate education from early childhood through to secondary education, as well as VET and tertiary education. The Yothu Yindi Foundation has stated that this is the culmination of more than 20 years of work by both the foundation and its communities' leaders. We know that First Nations children are not engaged with the mainstream education system. It is not culturally appropriate, it's not taught in language and it leads to poor outcomes down the track. Unemployment, incarceration and poor health outcomes are just some of those outcomes. We know that everything works better when it is co-designed with First Nations people. Education is no exception, so having an education curriculum that is centred on culture will unleash the potential of the next generation and will lead to improved outcomes. I had the pleasure of sitting with the youth forum to discuss some of these outcomes. The Yothu Yindi Foundation is just one example of what can happen when First Nations people are centred, are listened to and have their self-determination respected. I encourage all of you to familiarise yourself with the incredible work of this foundation—you may even like to become an ambassador—and that of many other First Nations organisations that are protecting our culture and ensuring that our kids have a bright future ahead of them. Senate adjourned at 19:59