2023-09-04 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Monday, 4 September 2023

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

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT 1 STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT Senate Procedure 1 10:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 Senators, on the last sitting day I mentioned a precedent for a senator moving a motion with the intention of voting against it. The Clerk recalled the precedent as being from 1991; in fact, the precedent is from 21 October 1993. You can find more information in Procedural information bulletin No. 373, from August 2023, and Procedural information bulletin No. 79, from October 1993. PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS 1 PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS Temporary Chairs of Committees 1 10:02 The PRESIDENT 112096 Pursuant to standing order 12, I lay on the table a warrant nominating Senator Grogan as an additional temporary chair of committees. DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 10:02 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any Senator. BILLS 1 BILLS International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Amendment Bill 2023 1

International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Amendment Bill 2023

Second Reading 1 10:03 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I rise to speak on the International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Amendment Bill 2023. I acknowledge this is a largely technical bill, one which introduces new powers for the government to grant privileges and immunities, such as immunity from Australian legal processes or tax exemptions for Australian residents employed by any organisation, to particular international organisations and individuals. At the outset I want to acknowledge the work of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee in relation to its consideration of this legislation, and particularly the work of coalition senators and their additional comments, which I will reference during my remarks this morning. The government, in introducing this bill, indicated that its aim is to provide flexibility in the granting of privileges and immunities, to give effect to privileges and immunities agreed under existing treaties—for example, with entities such as the OECD—and to assist in deepening Australia's defence, science and other strategic relationships. The coalition has a strong record of ensuring that international organisations and relevant officials are granted the necessary privileges and immunities to function effectively and to operate independently. This is in important recognition that the types of diplomatic privileges extended to countries with whom we have diplomatic relations and who have a presence in Australia as a function of those diplomatic relations also extend to the network of international organisations that pursue interests that Australia aligns with that undertake important work in the advancement of diplomacy internationally in the advancement of other issues and causes of concern to Australia. And it's important that they have the ability to operate effectively and to operate independently and, in doing so, have comparable capacity and capability to engage as nation states do in their engagement of work in Australia under various diplomatic immunities. In the past there has been a strict and conventional interpretation of what was and was not an international organisation. This has been a longstanding approach of successive Australian governments and it's one that in particular my coalition Senate colleagues gave careful consideration to in relation to the government's proposed changes to this act. The International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1963 was first introduced and passed by the coalition during the Menzies government in bipartisan spirit. It repealed an earlier privileges and immunities act which had been in existence since 1948. The act sought to give the parliament a greater degree of control over the kinds of privileges and immunities that may be conferred. Indeed, former Senator Gorton—later, of course, to become Prime Minister Gorton—stated in his second reading speech, as referenced in our additional comments: … under the previous Act, regulations may be made to give effect to any international convention on the subject to which Australia has acceded. The regulations could, provided that they give effect to such an international convention, be unlimited in their scope and subject only to the procedures for disallowance of regulations … It was important for the government at the time that there remain a substantial degree of parliamentary control, which is why the replacement act was put in place, and that that control was exerted in terms of limitations in the types of regulations that could be made. In February 1982 the coalition amended the act again with the support of the then Labor opposition. It was amended in particular because of an agreement between Australia and the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, or CCAMLR, convention. The amendments expanded the power to make regulations under the act so that representatives in international organisations attending CCAMLR conferences in Australia could be accorded similar privileges and immunities to those accorded to the representatives of member countries. This again, as I emphasised, goes to a concept of consistency between the treatment of those nations with whom we have diplomatic relations and who enjoy certain immunities and protections in relation to their operations in Australia and to similar privileges and immunities being extended to organisations undertaking similar and comparable international work and advancement. In 1997 the coalition again made further amendments, again with the support of Labor, to ensure that the act kept pace with the increasing number and diversity of international organisations being established. As former Senator Parer stated in his second reading speech: Australia only grants privileges and immunities which are required under our international obligations and commitments. When negotiating privileges and immunities as part of international agreements, this Government takes the line that specific items should be included only where there is a demonstrated functional need. We have to be satisfied that the specific privilege or immunity is necessary for the effective operation of the organisation. This again highlights a key principle that is to be maintained in relation to the operation of such privileges and immunities, be they extended to other nations or to international organisations: that, critically, in a country such as Australia—with a strong rule of law that is upheld here and high standards in relation to the application of those laws and precedents—we should be providing exemptions, privileges and protections only so far as they are necessary and appropriate. The 1948 act was further amended in 2013—then by a Labor government but again, in bipartisan spirit, with coalition support—to allow for the making of regulations to confer privileges and immunities on the International Committee of the Red Cross and also in relation to the International Criminal Court. At the time, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade stated that providing a separate legislative basis for regulations relating to the ICRC, rather than expanding the definition of 'international organisation', would ensure that the act contained a legislative basis for enacting regulations conferring privileges and immunities on the ICRC without—and this is important—'inadvertently extending the scope of the act to other organisations'. DFAT's submission to the inquiry undertaken in relation to the bill before us today does not specifically go into the reasons for the change in position since 2013, which sought to ensure a step-by-step approach, if you like, in terms of the inclusion of international organisations and how they are outlined. It is our view that the parliament should continue to ensure, itself, that the new arrangements being proposed work in ways that prevent the inadvertent extension of the scope of privileges or immunities to other organisations. But we do note, importantly, in terms of the operation of this bill, that the conferral of privileges will continue to occur by the making of regulations and that these regulations will continue to be tabled in parliament and will be subject to the usual disallowance procedures. We also note that the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills had no comment on the bill, and that is a committee that is, of course, well known for its work in relation to ensuring that any overreach by governments about the use of regulations is called out. We also note that DFAT have highlighted the limitations that exist in the current framework, as stated in their submission and highlighted in our additional comments: … Australia is currently unable to declare an organisation to be an 'international organisation' under the Act in order to confer privileges and immunities on it unless Australia is a member of, or has a person representing Australia in, the organisation. While the Act currently provides for an organisation of which Australia is not a member be an 'overseas organisation', the privileges and immunities that can be granted to such an organisation are more limited, as they only apply to persons connected to the organisation—not the organisation itself. The provisions in Schedule 1 to the Bill will remedy this deficiency in the Act to expand the category of organisations which can be declared an International organisation to include organisations of which Australia is not a member. Whilst it may seem unusual to some for us to wish to extend the application of the act and the conferral of privileges and immunities under the act to organisations that Australia is not a member of, there are indeed many examples of organisations, such as European based organisations, that have geographically based memberships but also very close connections, partnerships and working relationships with Australia. The same could be said in relation to ASEAN. Again, it's an organisation with whom Australia has very close relations and longstanding partnership principles in place. Though Australia is not a member, we would certainly wish to ensure that we were able to operate in a way where we provided as much respect to its operations as we would any other with whom we had such close relations. Whilst the coalition senators have noted that this bill's approach does somewhat deviate from the approach taken previously by the coalition and by the Labor Party in the parliament more generally during previous proposals, we recognise that the proposed changes, implemented appropriately and with sufficient safeguards, will prevent inadvertent expansion to organisations and that it does have the potential to broaden and deepen Australia's engagement with the international community in a way that streamlines operations. It is the current practice, as we've highlighted, that privileges and immunities are only conferred where Australia has agreed to do so. Coalition senators also note that the explanatory memorandum states that the bill would also allow for the conferral of privileges and immunities set out in schedules 2 to 5 of the act on categories of officials not prescribed in the act where requested by an international organisation and agreed by Australia. We note that, whilst there is nothing explicit in the bill that requires an international organisation to request the conferral of such privileges and immunities, it is reasonable to infer that a request would have to be made for such a conferral to receive the agreement of Australia. We will, and we trust that the parliament will, through various processes, including committees that assess regulations, carefully monitor the implementation of the new framework. This will ensure that Australia continues to grant privileges and immunities when they are required under international obligations and commitments but that we do not extend them to apply to organisations where they are not required, nor do we extend the scope of those privileges and immunities beyond what is absolutely necessary. With that, I indicate that, consistent with all previous engagements on this bill, we maintain the bipartisanship that has been applied to its modernisation and amendments over time. 10:15 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I speak today in support of the International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Amendment Bill 2023 on behalf of the Australian Greens. We in the Greens recognise that this amendment has the potential to broaden and deepen Australia's engagement with the international community. We agree that international organisations carry out critical work, particularly in the areas of humanitarian work, scientific exploration and other fields, to promote international cooperation and collaboration. The Greens do share concerns that DFAT's submission did not go sufficiently into the reasons for its change in position since 2013 and therefore does not articulate how the new bill prevents or mitigates the department's previous concerns regarding the expansion of the scope of the act. We believe in Australia's role in international cooperation. We are deeply committed, as a party of peace and nonviolence, to cooperation and peaceful consensus-building with our friends and our partners. Our movement is built on a belief and a foundation that global cooperation facilitated by peaceful, non-violent conflict resolution is essential to ensuring human and environmental wellbeing. Foreign affairs, we believe, should operate on relationships of exchange, collaboration and genuine consensus-building. With the oldest governance structures globally, First Nations peoples' approaches to interpolity, coexistence and relationship-building with neighbouring political entities should drive foreign affairs policies. We need to acknowledge that, if we are to address the climate crisis, to eliminate nuclear weapons and to collaborate on so many of the other pressing issues which face our collective human species, we need to use this knowledge and wisdom and place it at the heart of how we work. We need to work together to address the shared human and environmental challenges that we are now faced with. The foreign minister noted in a brief on the bill, which was provided to my office in our consideration of the legislation, 'The bill will improve Australia's ability to attract and host international conferences.' Which conference do we think they pointed directly to? They included the 31st Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework on Climate Change—COP31—for which Australia has bid. Yes, it has. Hasn't the Australian government bid for COP? Yet, I think, and the Greens believe, that the government needs to do a lot more if it truly wishes to attract COP with dignity and to make a pitch for such an important global gathering upon a basis of integrity. I am privileged to have had the opportunity to meet with Pacific leaders during their visits to Australia. In this political landscape, it is always a pleasure to be a foreign affairs spokesperson who can wholeheartedly embrace and hear their climate concerns. It is a pleasure to be somebody that can sit with them and not ask them to validate their fears and frustrations, and not ask them to balance their reality of losing their homes and their sacred sites to the ever-rising waters of the Pacific against the internal difficulties of taking action, as they are so often asked to do by representatives of both the Liberal Party and the Labor Party. It is a pleasure to be able to meet with them and work with them in solidarity in the fight against catastrophic climate change, which they are facing on the front line. Former leaders, including leaders of the Marshall Islands, Kiribati, Tuvalu and Palau, have said that Australia should stop trying to hurry their countries to support Australia's bid for COP31. I'll just make that clear. Our country has been placing pressure on Pacific island leaders to support this nation's bid for COP in a context where their homes are sinking because of the very fuels that this government continues to burn and rip out of the ground and as a direct result of government action. This is just the latest example of a patriarchal and disingenuous approach to foreign policy which has characterised the approach of the Australian government to the region not just for the last couple of governments or for the last couple of decades but, indeed, since the very beginning of an independent Australian foreign policy approach in our region. From the very beginning, the leaders of both the Liberal and Labor parties—whatever side of politics they have been on—have been on a unity ticket when it comes to the Pacific with a sole goal in mind, and that's to maintain Australian power in the region on behalf of the United States and to operate effectively, first and foremost, as a sub-imperial power. That has meant that at every step when Pacific island leaders have come together, whether it be to join in the non-aligned movement and to be represented at Bandung as the world came together to chart a pathway to peace in the middle of the Cold War, where was Australia? It was bugging those meetings and actively placing policies in the way of such peaceful and non-violent cooperation in the face of the global arms race. When Pacific leaders come together to champion the denuclearisation of their homes and waters to make sure that their homes and lands are never again the site of nuclear testing—when their homes and lands have so often been used as the playground, the theatre, as global powers play arms-race games at their expense—where is Australia? Australia is actively undermining the work of global nonproliferation and actively bringing a nuclear arms race to their backyard through our government's support of AUKUS. For decades and decades, Pacific leaders have sat around table after table with prime ministers from all sides of parliament and begged them to stop burning the coal and gas that is sinking their homes. And this government has the cheek, the barefaced audacity—I am losing track of the number of coalmines that our so-called environment minister has approved. She is not only failing to keep the stuff in the ground and not only failing to transition away but actively opening more. Yet the Australian government has the cheek to go to a Pacific island nation—to Fiji, of all places, which has relocated town after town due to rising waters. This is not at some theoretical point in the future; multiple towns have already had to be relocated, with many, many more on the list. Minister Bowen, from the other place, goes into a meeting with Pacific island leaders in Suva and comes out saying that he hopes that this COP, to be hosted in Australia, will be remembered as the Pacific COP. What a joke! What a cruel farce! The reality of the moment is this: the Australian Labor Party can pick between, on one hand, the donations given to them by the Woodsides and the BHPs and the Rio Tintos, for which the Prime Minister is so proud to shill, and positive headlines in the Murdoch press and, on the other hand, Pacific island nations. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Excuse me, Senator Steele-John. There is a point of order. Senator McAllister 121628 I've been listening to the contribution from Senator Steele-John. I believe the characterisation of the Prime Minister's behaviour is not consistent with the standing orders. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Steele-John, please restrain yourself in relation to this. I know it's a passionate issue for you. Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Indeed. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I don't necessarily think it was to the extent that it needed withdrawal, but, if you want to make a further submission, I didn't quite hear it to its fullest extent. Senator McAllister 121628 I'm reluctant to repeat the characterisation, but Senator Steele-John may wish to consider— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Steele-John, to the extent that it offended the chamber, I'd ask you to withdraw. Senator Scarr 282997 On the point of order, I think Senator McAllister did make a very good point. I think there was a crossing of a boundary in terms of a reflection. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 This is not a debate. Senator Steele-John, please proceed. Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 I'm pleased to withdraw. I wouldn't want to offend Mr Albo Tinto, in the other place. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Steele-John, please. You don't make my life any easier. Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Alright. They're in a sensitive mood. I understand. It's fine. I withdraw. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Thank you. Please proceed. Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Pacific island leaders are begging Australia to stop opening up new coal and gas mines in its approach to the COP summit, and so they should. Our planet is burning. Our country, this country, stares down the barrel of a fire season catastrophic in its extent. Senator Allman-Payne is with us in the chamber today for the state of Queensland, which is in a catastrophic fire danger moment right now. Yet the first order of business that this government has set out today for this Senate sitting period is the passage of a bill to enable it to host a global meeting ostensibly with the purpose of addressing climate change, and government ministers are currently travelling around the Pacific pressuring leaders of those nations who are at the forefront of the climate crisis to get on board with their bid. Well, I tell the chamber this morning: I back Pacific island nations in their opposition to Australia hosting COP until it has committed not to dig up another lump of coal or to burn another litre of gas. It is the very least we can do in solidarity with them. The Greens will continue to work in solidarity with Pacific island leaders to build the consensus around transformative climate action that we have heard so clearly from them that they so urgently require of us as a nation and of this government as a self-styled leader. 10:29 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania I rise to make some additional comments, particularly following the contribution of Senator Birmingham on the International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Amendment Bill 2023. The Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, of which I am Deputy Chair, has reviewed this bill and made a recommendation that it should pass this chamber. However, I think it is important to put on the record during this debate this morning some of the additional comments that coalition senators made in the inquiry report, so that it is clear that the new arrangements that will be put in place by the bill should be monitored on an ongoing basis to ensure that they are effective and that there is not a creep of scope in terms of the organisations which can be made eligible for exemptions. The International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Amendment Bill 2023 introduces new powers for the government to grant privileges and immunities—such as immunity from Australian legal processes or tax exemptions for Australian residents employed by the organisation—to international organisations and individuals. The bill contains one schedule which the explanatory memorandum explains will amend the act to: declare an organisation of which Australia is not a member as an international organisation under the Act; confer privileges and immunities on categories of officials not prescribed in the Act, where requested by an international organisation and agreed to by Australia; and more flexibly grant the privileges and immunities set out in Schedules 2-5 of the Act to international organisations and connected persons. I note that the exclamatory memorandum also references that the bill will not change the specific privileges and immunities contained in the act, nor does it change the process of the conferral of privileges and immunities on an organisation, which generally occur by way of regulations made by the Governor-General. The government's stated aim in introducing this act is to provide flexibility in the granting of privileges and immunities, to give effect to agreed privileges and immunities under existing treaties—for example, with the OECD—and to assist in deepening Australia's defence, science and other strategic relationships. The coalition has a strong record of ensuring that international organisations and relevant officials are granted the necessary privileges and immunities to function effectively and operate independently, particularly during our own time in government. In the past, there has been a strict and conventional interpretation of what was and what was not an international organisation. This was a longstanding approach of successive Australian governments, and coalition senators have given very careful consideration as to why this approach should now change, as referenced in our additional comments in the committee report. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's submission to the committee inquiry didn't actively engage with the reasons for its change in position since 2013, and it doesn't articulate how this new bill prevent or mitigates the government's previous concerns regarding an inadvertent expansion of the scope of this act. We're of the view that the parliament should continue to assure itself that the new arrangements put in place by this bill are working in ways that prevent the inadvertent extensions of scope to other organisations. These privileges and these immunities that we are talking about with this bill are important ones, and they should not be extended without due consideration of the possible implications of doing so. We note that the conferral of privileges will continue to occur by the making of regulations rather than through legislation, and these regulations are tabled in the parliament and are subject to the usual disallowance procedures, particularly in this place. There is an avenue for the parliament to disallow if it believes an incorrect or inappropriate decision has been made to extend the privileges and immunities in question to an international organisation. We in the coalition will be carefully monitoring the implementation of this new framework to ensure that Australia continues to grant privileges and immunities when they are required under our international obligations and commitments, and in ways that do not inadvertently extend the scope to other organisations or without due reason for doing so. We need to be very conscious that immunity from Australian legal processes is a major privilege afforded to certain international organisations, and therefore it should be applied only in very strictly controlled circumstances. There are, of course, many organisations and groups around the world who are not currently granted this status and this privilege but would like to be. So it is critical that we in the parliament keep a close watch, going into the future, to ensure that there is not a creeping of the scope of these privileges, that they are not inappropriately extended where they should not be, and that we don't lose appropriate oversight and scrutiny of where, when and to whom these privileges and immunities are provided. 10:35 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I thank all senators for their contribution to the debate on the international organisations on the International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Amendment Bill 2023. In particular, I thank the opposition and the Greens for their indication of support for the legislation before us. I note that Senator Steele-John took the opportunity to make a series of observations about the government's approach to seeking international agreement to host COP 31 here in Australia, and I might, in the briefest of terms, provide a response to that, because the characterisation of the government's motivation, of the government's approach to our discussions with our Pacific family and of the government's approach to climate action is wrong. I start by indicating that the government understands how deeply significant the issue of climate change is to our Pacific family. Indeed, the former government's inability to accept the science of climate change or formulate a policy in relation to climate change was a key sticking point in making progress in this important relationship. It's a challenge we have sought to remedy, first, by establishing a clear pathway for Australia to meet our obligations in the international community to reduce our own emissions; second, by deeply engaging with Pacific partners on their concerns and interests; and, third, by re-engaging in a constructive, active, deliberate way with the broader multilateral framework on climate change. You've seen this, I think, reflected in the work of the foreign minister, of Minister Conroy, who has responsibility for the Pacific, of the Prime Minister, of Minister Marles and of Minister Bowen, all of whom have sought to engage closely with our Pacific neighbours, because the Pacific family is important to the government, of course, and is also important to Australians. We understand that Australians have deep, close relationships across the Pacific family, and they are relationships that we seek to reflect and honour in the approach we take to diplomacy. Returning to the bill, may I say this: this bill will benefit Australia. It will provide new opportunities to cooperate with international organisations, and it will assist Australia in giving effect to our international obligations, aligning our domestic laws more closely with the treaties to which we are a party. It will increase flexibility in which privileges and immunities we grant, where agreed to by Australia and in our national interest. The changes proposed in this bill are small, but they are important. Firstly, they will enable Australia to accord privileges and immunities to international organisations of which Australia is not a member. This includes, for example, the Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation, with which Australia has concluded a framework agreement. Second, the amendments will allow Australia to grant privileges and immunities to classes of officials not set out in the act, where requested by an international organisation and agreed to by Australia. Finally, Australia will have more flexibility in granting the existing suite of privileges and immunities under the act to international organisations and their officials. The government's objective is to participate in the multilateral system actively and constructively. To achieve this we need to support its institutions and recognise the benefits that international organisations bring to Australia, the region and the world. The bill reflects the commitment of this government to these objectives. On that note, I commend the bill to the chamber. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee 7 10:40 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I have two questions for the minister. The first question is: who else will get immunity? The second question is: what additional immunities will be provided? Minister, in regard to the first question as to who else will get immunity under this bill who currently doesn't get immunity, can you please name organisations that could be granted immunity under this bill who do not currently receive immunity? I note that the explanatory memorandum mentions the framework agreement for the Organisation for Joint Armament Co-operation, OCCAR. Who else does the government have in mind, because it seems a major bill for one minor agreement? For example, would the World Economic Forum meet the criteria for immunity? Would Gavi, the global alliance for vaccines and immunisation, meet the criteria? This organisation is partly private and partly public. Does this bill extend record protections to existing organisations? I use the United Nations as an example. Do they have inviolability for their records or operations in Australia already? Under the existing legislation are all United Nations agencies, such as the World Health Organization, protected by the overarching enlisting of the United Nations as an immune organisation? Does this bill protect from inquiry, including a Senate inquiry or a royal commission, the World Health Organization's records in respect of directions and actions they took during COVID? Is that what's going on with this bill? 10:42 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thanks for the questions, Senator Roberts. The short way of answering your questions is to say that international organisations are organisations that are formed as a consequence of treaty making. That is the broad test at the heart of the existing legislation and it is not proposed to change that. The specific change that is being made here that is relevant to your question is simply to allow organisations to be recognised where Australia is not a member. I'm advised by the department that the World Economic Forum is not an organisation that would be considered relevant. They sought to clarify whether Gavi would be included and they confirm that Gavi would not be included. 10:43 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Specifically, does this bill protect from inquiry, including a Senate inquiry or a royal commission, the World Health Organization's records in respect of directions and actions they took during the COVID management response? 10:44 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales This bill doesn't change the protections that would be applicable to the World Health Organization. 10:44 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Thank you, Minister. My second question goes to what additional immunities are offered. Will the designation of a new body be a disallowable instrument? Will there be any form of inquiry, public consultation or committee process before the minister grants immunity to some international organisations that we have no control over? What if a person from an organisation commits a summary offence in Australia? Are they covered by immunity? What if a person commits an indictable offence? Do they have immunity? Will indemnity be given to a commercial operation which, according to this bill, may be excused from taxation? Exemption from taxation suggests they are liable for taxation. Under what circumstance would an exemption apply? Inviolability of records may mean an organisation can be given immunity, come over here and then do something controversial. In that situation, can the Senate examine the organisation under oath in a Senate inquiry and compel testimony, including the provision of records? 10:45 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thanks, Senator Roberts. I think you asked essentially two questions, the first of which is about opportunities for the Senate to scrutinise decisions taken under the legislation should it pass and the second goes to what privileges or immunities might be available to organisations. In relation to scrutiny, the allocation of privileges and immunities would be done by a disallowable instrument made in the Senate, so the ordinary arrangements for the Senate would apply in this regard. I understand that, when the committee considered this, this was one of the features that senators considered in their discussion and it's reflected in the report that was provided by the committee on this bill. In terms of the specific privileges and immunities that are presently available under the legislation, I can say two things. The first is that this bill doesn't change those at all. It doesn't seek to change the privileges or immunities that would be made available to an eligible organisation, but, to provide some clarity for you, I will set out what is presently available, noting that this bill makes no change to that. Privileges and immunities are legal protections afforded to foreign missions, international organisations and their representatives. The privileges and immunities contained in the act include immunity from jurisdiction, inviolability of premises and archives, currency and fiscal privileges, and the absence of censorship of official correspondence and communications. As I indicated, the bill will not change the privileges and immunities available under the act. 10:47 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Thank you for your answer, Minister. I would like one clarification. I asked: Will indemnity be given to a commercial operation which, according to this bill, may be excused from taxation? Exemption from taxation suggests they're liable for taxation, so under what circumstance would an exemption apply? 10:47 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The present legislation provides for privileges and immunities to be allocated to international organisations. I've already provided some indication of the definition of an international organisation. It's not proposed to change that in the legislation before the Senate. 10:48 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland Minister, could you explain to me what the substance of this bill is in terms of indemnity and privileges? I get very windy when I find out that foreign organisations get legal privileges over the average everyday Australian. In light of the particular harsh censorship that's been imposed upon Australian people in regard to social media by social media companies, and how they're getting away with that, can you again summarise what the key purpose of this bill is, please? 10:48 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thanks, Senator Rennick. The bill makes three changes to the act. First, it will enable Australia to declare an organisation of which Australia is not currently a member as an international organisation under the act. Perhaps I can explain that that's important because there are organisations which, for one reason or another, we may not be able to be a member of or we may not at this point in time seek to join but we nonetheless wish to cooperate with them, so it is useful for us to be in a position to offer them these immunities and privileges so they may conduct activities in Australia that are in our national interest. Secondly, it will allow Australia to confer privileges and immunities on categories of officials not prescribed in the act where requested by an international organisation and agreed to by Australia, and it will amend the act to allow more flexibility in the conferral of privileges and immunities to international organisations and connected persons. Both of those latter two points go to essentially technicalities and challenges in the interpretation of the act as presently constructed. For example, in some instances where an official's title might be described, in the treaty that establishes the organisation, in terms different to how it is described in our act—even though they are functionally the same thing and we would ordinarily seek to offer privileges and immunities to such a person exercising those duties in our country—it's been challenging legally. So it addresses technical complications that have impeded our capacity to offer privileges and immunities where there is a policy interest in doing so. The broader point the government would make is that the bill will provide new opportunities for Australia to cooperate with international organisations. We anticipate that that would assist in deepening our defence, science and other strategic relationships and more broadly enhance our engagement with the multilateral system. 10:51 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland Could you just be a little bit more specific in terms of whether this is taxation privileges? Is it legal privileges? Whenever I hear the term 'multilateral agreements'—my experience with multilateral agreements is in regard to tax treaties and, in particular, sovereign wealth funds, whereby we have an agreement that sovereign wealth funds who invest in Australia don't have to pay tax here, and likewise our sovereign wealth funds who invest overseas don't have to pay tax over there. To me, that's not in the national interest at all, because we erode our tax base when we do that. What you've just read back to me then was basically reading—I've asked for the substance of the matter here. Have we got particular organisations that are going to be immune from taxation, from the normal legal requirements of any citizen? I fail to see why, in order to be a part of the global community, we have to give these organisations, whoever they may be, privileges that aren't available to other Australian citizens. So, as I said, what is the purpose of this? Why is this needed now, when it's never been needed in the last 110 or 120 years of federation? 10:52 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Perhaps one way of providing some reassurance to you is to give you an indication of the organisations that are presently receiving privileges and immunities under the act, because it might describe the scope of the current legislation, and then I can talk a little about how we propose to change it. Presently the act confers privileges on international organisations, and these are organisations that are formed as a consequence of treaty making between states. The international organisations that are currently in receipt of privileges and immunities under the act include the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the International Court of Justice, the Asian Development Bank, the International Mobile Satellite Organization, the International Seabed Authority and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. These are the kinds of organisations that have been offered privileges and immunities, and we do that because it is in our national interest to have these organisations active in Australia and because it's necessary to ensure that these organisations can function independently and effectively across the globe. For example, article 105 of the Charter of the United Nations accords the United Nations the privileges and immunities necessary for the fulfilment of its purpose. So, we have some obligations in a range of treaties to offer these privileges and immunities to these international organisations that work in the international community. The bill maintains the requirement that an eligible organisation must be an international organisation as already defined in the act. It makes an important change though, which is that it allows us to offer religious immunities to an organisation that we're not a member of. As I explained earlier, there are good reasons why we might want to do so. I conclude by pointing to the safeguard that I referred to earlier in my exchange with Senator Roberts. These questions are established by way of a regulation. They are disallowable instruments and, in addition to, of course, the minister being constrained by the objectives of the act, the Senate has a measure of scrutiny about any decision that's proposed through regulation. 10:55 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Following on from Senator Rennick 's questions, I'm specifically interested in the United Nations World Health Organization. Originally that was funded as part of the United Nations, but we now know that about 80 per cent of its funding comes from private entities. Would the UN World Health Organization be considered an international organisation? 10:56 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The World Health Organization is an entity that's comprised of member states, and it would be considered an international organisation, I am advised. 10:56 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland [Inaudible] the discretion to stop or to look behind the proposed takeover of a UN body by a private entity as much as that's happened with the United Nations World Health Organization? 10:56 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I'm uncertain of the basis of that assertion, but, putting that to one side, this is a relatively narrow bill which makes very limited changes to an existing piece of legislation which offers privileges and immunities to international organisations. It wouldn't affect the Australian government's capacity to examine our participation in any of these organisations at all. 10:57 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland It wouldn't stop the Senate from scrutinising such an organisation if it were brought under the umbrella of 'international organisation', so we could still scrutinise its actions in relevance to Australia's operations? 10:57 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales As I indicated in my last answer, the matters you refer to and the capacity for the Senate to more broadly examine the functioning of international organisations or international treaties is not the subject of this bill; however, as I indicated earlier, to the extent that this bill provides a regulation-making power that might be exercised by the minister, the Senate would continue to have the opportunity to scrutinise those decisions. 10:58 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I put on record my thanks to the minister for her answers. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendments; report adopted. Third Reading 9 10:59 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) Bill 2023 9

Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) Bill 2023

Second Reading 9 10:59 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria On behalf of the federal coalition, I would state that we will be supporting the passage of the Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) Bill 2023 because the coalition recognises that having a strong and robust biosecurity system is crucial for protecting Australia against the threat of pests and disease. Biosecurity is a critical pillar of our national defence. Having an efficient system in place allows our nation to prepare for, mitigate against and respond to the serious risks to our environment, economy and way of life. Incredibly, Australia's environmental assets are estimated to be worth $5.7 trillion, our agricultural production has reached $90 billion and employs hundreds of thousands of people and tourism, before COVID, contributed $50 billion to our nation's GDP. The health, sustainability and resilience of all these sectors rely on a biosecurity system that is advanced and effective. However, many of the things we take for granted as a constant of Australian life are at greater risk than ever before. It is a confronting reality that exotic pests and diseases are spreading around the world and putting serious pressure on our borders, especially with constant threats like foot-and-mouth disease and lumpy skin disease. The emergency response in Australia continues to eradicate varroa mite. Responding to this rapidly changing biosecurity environment requires the government to have the controls, partnerships, tools, processes and networks in place to manage these risks, which brings me to the bill before the Senate today. The Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) Bill will amend the Biosecurity Act 2015 by streamlining administrative processes and increasing some penalties to ensure there is compliance with our strict biosecurity laws. This follows a track record of similar changes that have been made to the act in previous years. Since it commenced in 2015, the Biosecurity Act has been amended several times, mainly in relation to increases in civil penalties for breaches. This bill consists of four schedules to the Biosecurity Act which apply to both human and non-human biosecurity risks. Schedule 1 relates to assessing biosecurity risks for persons on an incoming aircraft or vessel. The amendments will allow classes of people to be directed to provide relevant information, instead of the current methods, which is on an individual basis. The Director of Biosecurity may also require any person to produce passports or official government travel documents so as to assess the level of biosecurity risk and for future profiling of future risk assessments. These documents can be scanned and retained for as long as is necessary to meet the purpose of this provision. It's important to note that there is a penalty for not adhering to this provision and that, currently, under the Biosecurity Act 2015, passports can be requested to be provided. This amendment will formalise this request and include the purposes for providing these documents—for determining the level of biosecurity risk associated with the person and any goods that the person has with them for future profiling or future risk assessment—and allow for these documents to be scanned and retained. Schedule 2 amends the processes of providing notifications to holders of an approved arrangement, so as to streamline the processes of suspending, changing or revoking these arrangements. The aim of these changes is to cut red tape for biosecurity officers by making this process simpler and avoiding the need to provide multiple notifications. It also introduces a new procedural fairness requirement relating to a notice of proposed variation and an alternative sanction of a reprimand. Schedule 3 increases a range of civil penalties for breaches of biosecurity law to prevent listed human diseases, manage deceased individuals and human remains and meet the requirements that apply to human health response zones. Ultimately, we need to have civil penalties that serve as a proportionate deterrent against noncompliance in response to growing human biosecurity threats. Additionally, there are increased penalties for providing false and misleading information. Schedule 4 allows strict liability provisions and infringement notices to apply to a number of penalties where there is no way to deal with low-level noncompliance other than by prosecution or civil litigation. This will ensure that noncompliance can be addressed swiftly and effectively. The federal coalition notes that this bill has undergone extensive consideration, having been referred to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on 22 June. This committee has now published its report and has recommended that the bill be supported through the parliament. We also recognise that, through this committee process, the bill has received the support of industry and major agricultural stakeholders, including the National Farmers Federation, GrainGrowers, Australian Dairy Farmers, Australian Pork Ltd and NSW Farmers. Ultimately, it comes down to this. We must ensure that people who seek to enter Australia and bring goods into this country—those who actually present the biosecurity risk at our borders—are complying with their obligations and responsibilities to keep our nation safe from pests and diseases. So, while the coalition are supporting the passage of this bill, we are concerned with Labor's approach to other elements of biosecurity policy. In the second reading speech on this bill, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government spoke about the government's sustainable funding model. We know that it is absolutely vital that Australia has a biosecurity system that is adequately and appropriately funded. That's why, in government, the federal coalition always funded a sustainable funding model for biosecurity. However, taxing farmers was never considered part of that funding mix. The coalition's approach to a sustainable funding model was targeted at the risk creators at the borders—the importers. We believe an importer container levy is the responsible and fair way forward. In government we were making progress on this model, but it has not been implemented by Labor. Instead of an import container levy, the Albanese Labor government has decided that, from July next year, Australian farmers will be slugged with a new $153 million tax, which amounts to a bill equivalent of 10 per cent of their existing industry-led agricultural levies. Why would any Australian government tax its own farmers to pay for the biosecurity risks of their international competitors? We're one of the great agricultural trading nations on earth, but instead of facilitating that and doing what it can to put downward pressure on our competitors, the government is actually facilitating our competitors against our national interest. It doesn't make sense, it's profoundly unfair and it's the wrong approach to ensuring that our biosecurity system is properly funded in the future. Under a federal coalition government the Australian people can be assured that, in contrast to Labor, our hardworking farmers will never be punished for the biosecurity risk that their international competitors seek to bring in. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the federal coalition supports the bill before the Senate but calls on the Labor Party, who seek at every turn to make regional Australia and our agricultural industries pay the price so that they can sate their city-centric voting public. The regions don't vote for the Labor Party, and you can tell that by the way it is seeking to fund the biosecurity system, by taxing Australian farmers against their competitors. We will support the bill because we need to have a biosecurity system that is strong, robust and fit for purpose, a system that has in place penalties which reflect the severity of any breaches and non-compliance by individuals who would willingly place at risk our unique environment, our economy and, indeed, our society. That is how serious it is. People might hear the word 'biosecurity' and go, 'La, la, la; that doesn't affect me or impact me.' If you love our natural environment and our flora and fauna, if you work in our tourism industry, if you rely or live in rural and regional Australia and you love our green produce that we produce and purchase in capital cities, then you need to understand that all that is completely underpinned by a strong biosecurity system. So of course we support it. It has always been a priority for us because we, unlike the Labor Party, fully appreciate and understand the role that Australian farmers and our $90 billion agriculture industry provide for this country. We achieved a lot in government. Our government made more than $1 billion available for biosecurity and export programs in 2022. That was a funding increase of 69 per cent compared with 2014. In last year's budget we committed to strengthening our northern Australian biosecurity front line against animal diseases. We've got sentinel herds and Indigenous rangers all throughout northern Australia. The greatest risk is posed from those countries to our north where there have been outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease and lumpy skin disease. State and territory governments were to be given support to undertake surveillance and control activities, and funding to improve livestock traceability was announced. In government we increased fines and penalties for people breaking biosecurity laws. I recall doing exactly that when I was agriculture minister: throwing the book at people who chose to flout our tough biosecurity regime—who thought it was okay to bring home goods, particularly meat goods, from overseas in the interests of family, when actually that posed an incredible biosecurity risk to our country. We also partnered with New Zealand to develop world-leading biosecurity risk detection technology, such as 3D X-rays. Ultimately, our measures in office ensured that Australia remained a world leader in biosecurity, with strong controls in place offshore, at the border and within Australia. We will be supporting this bill because we believe that the measures outlined in this legislation are sensible and reasonable, and we commend it to the Senate, but we again implore the Labor Party to find ways to fund their biosecurity policy other than by taxing Australian farmers. 11:11 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania This bill, the Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) Bill 2023, would amend the Biosecurity Act 2015 by increasing the powers of the Director of Biosecurity and introducing new civil penalties for failure to comply with instructions or provide relevant information or documents. This bill would enable Australia's biosecurity system to better detect threats and prevent incursions. The most recent amendment to the act was made in response to the threats of foot-and-mouth disease and lumpy skin disease. This bill seeks to build upon those changes and is focused on addressing biosecurity risks posed by travellers. The impacts of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease or lumpy skin disease on Australian farmers would be devastating. I was part of the Senate inquiry that look into this recently, and the Greens support action to mitigate these threats at the border and internationally. In the May budget the Labor government announced more than $1 billion in new funding for biosecurity and stated: This Budget delivers new biosecurity funding totalling more than $1 billion over the next four years, with more than $260 million guaranteed every year after that. However, following the budget it has come to light that revenue generated by both the increased industry levies and the passenger movement charge will go to consolidated revenue rather than being hypothecated to, or earmarked for, a special account exclusively for biosecurity. This presents a significant risk that these funds may be diverted to other priorities by a future minister or government. While the government has promised to increase funding through increased agriculture industry levies, there is a significant opportunity to strengthen Australia's biosecurity system through ensuring biosecurity risk creators, such as importers, are appropriately levied to match the risks that increasing trade poses to Australia. Long-term, sustainable funding for Australia's biosecurity system is critical if we're to manage the growing biosecurity risk posed by increased tourism and trade. While the government's recently announced biosecurity funding is welcome, there are concerns that its allocation and distribution are primarily directed towards creating protections for our Australian agriculture industry, while environmental biosecurity—protection from threats posed to our environment by invasive species—receives funding that is piecemeal at best and only a few per cent of the overall budget allocated to biosecurity. This is a key point I want to make in my contribution today. Australia has had 136 incursions of 106 invasive species since records began, in the year 2000. The introduction of invasive species, diseases and pests poses a significant risk to native species and ecosystems as well as to our primary industries and tourism sector. New incursions of invasive species are a major risk to Australia's environment. Contemporary arrivals, including red fire ants, yellow crazy ants and myrtle rust, are devastating our environment right here, right now, and have also had significant social and economic impacts. Despite the significant threat that invasive species pose to Australia's environment, environmental biosecurity remains underresourced and historically has generally been deprioritised in Australia's biosecurity system. I've continually asked the department questions on this exact issue at Senate estimates. The Greens would obviously like to see that change. In a minute, I'll be moving a second reading amendment for the Senate to acknowledge this. What does sustainable biosecurity funding for the environment look like? The Invasive Species Council commissioned Frontier Economics to evaluate methods of delivering sustainable long-term funding. Their key finding was that biosecurity services should be funded by risk creators in the first instance, followed by beneficiaries and the general public. The second reading amendment that I will move shortly speaks directly to this point and urges the Senate to agree to the prioritisation, in both focus and funding, of the risks posed to Australia's environment and environmental biosecurity by invasive species. A number of other independent reviews have identified the poor performance of Australia's biosecurity system when it comes to protecting our national environment. One biosecurity, the report to the Australian government by the independent Review of Australia's Quarantine and Biosecurity Arrangements, also known as the Beale review raised this issue as early as 2008. The review of the Intergovernmental Agreement on Biosecurity, or IGAB, in 2017 by Dr Wendy Craik AM also raised this issue. The CSIRO, in their 2020 report Australia's biosecurity future, also raised this issue. All these reviews call for heightened focus and resources for environmental biosecurity, as being necessary for biosecurity protection, biodiversity protection and extinction prevention, along with ecosystem resilience and better primary production. Australia needs ongoing, sustainable funding to support our biosecurity system, which will both safeguard our agricultural sector and ensure our natural environment is protected. Environmental biosecurity remains underresourced and is generally deprioritised, and we need to change that. For example, currently there is no environmental biosecurity preparedness body that is driving action to prepare for new environmental pests before they arrive. We've just had a Senate inquiry into doing this for lumpy skin disease and foot-and-mouth disease. Where are our strategic plans for dealing with these environmental pests? Industry bodies such as Plant Health Australia and Animal Health Australia are set up to deal with agricultural pests once they arrive, but we have no similar body to deal with environmental pests. This means that the responses to high-risk environmental pests are generally slow and poorly coordinated and have a low chance of successful eradication. The National Priority List of Exotic Environmental Pests, Weeds and Diseases, whilst a good start, is not comprehensive. High-risk species slip through our border controls, including new species and variants. Myrtle rust, Asian honeybees, red imported fire ants and yellow crazy ants are just some examples. We have not done the necessary risk assessments or prepared response plans for environmental threats, and we need to change this. National leadership and coordination sit with the Chief Environmental Biosecurity Officer within the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, DAFF. The Chief Environmental Biosecurity Officer is, at best, severely understaffed and underfunded to perform its base functions, in contrast to what could be achieved if it were adequately resourced. There is insufficient funding for or focus on national research and development on priority pests and diseases and plans to deal with those. There are five key reforms needed to strengthen Australia's environmental biosecurity system. The first reform is to establish an independent body to coordinate the environmental biosecurity response, preparedness and engagement. Industry biosecurity is well served by the coordinating bodies Plant Health Australia and Animal Health Australia. A similar body for environmental pests would enhance Australia's capacity for environmental biosecurity preparedness and assist with biosecurity investment and coordination. The second reform is to implement sustainable funding measures that target risk creators first. Funding sources for biosecurity should be based on equity, coming from risk creators first, beneficiaries second and general taxation third. The third reform is to increase the capacity and capability of the environmental biosecurity office. Additional permanent staff and funding must be allocated to the Office of the Chief Environmental Biosecurity Officer within DAFF so it can perform its core functions. The fourth reform is to improve surveillance for high-risk potential invaders, significantly increase investment in biosecurity surveillance, establish a community biosecurity surveillance coordinator and finalise and implement the INVASIPLAN, which was intended to be an environmental biosecurity preparedness plan. Lastly, the fifth reform is to strengthen research, development and extension—RD&E—for invasive species. Australia needs a targeted and rapid RD&E program to address urgent gaps in environmental biosecurity research and invasive species management. Currently, funding is not coordinated or connected in this regard. I move my second reading amendment to the Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) Bill 2023: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes that: (i) new incursions of invasive species are a major risk and significant threat to Australia's natural environment, and (ii) a number of independent reviews have identified the poor performance of Australia's biosecurity system when it comes to protecting our natural environment; and (b) is of the opinion that: (i) the Government must place greater priority on environmental biosecurity, and (ii) long-term sustainable funding for Australia's environmental biosecurity system is critical if we are to manage the growing biosecurity risks posed by climate change, increasing tourism and trade". Paragraph (a)(i) is something I can't imagine anyone would argue against. Paragraph (a)(ii) is a statement of fact. In my remaining time for contributions, I want to talk a little bit more about the varroa mite outbreak, because it's a classic example. While we might be talking about transits, passengers in airports and in other places and giving the department more power and the ability to levy more significant penalties, the news out of New South Wales is not good. The Senate inquiry took extensive evidence on this; we visited Newcastle and other places. It is sad that, 18 months down the track, we're still seeking to eradicate this pest. Sadly, although I appreciate all of the efforts that have gone into this, it doesn't seem to be working. We recently heard about new varroa mite outbreaks. Just for the Senate's information, while we had the first detected infested hives around Newcastle, there are now 233 infested premises across more than 1.5 million hectares of red zones in New South Wales. More than 28,000 hives have been euthanised, equating to around 40 million bees killed, and there's no end to this in sight. A number of the owners of these beehives have been small operators, and of course it's had a significant impact on their livelihoods. The New South Wales government announced a funding boost of more than $30 million to support beekeepers and horticulture and cropping industries that are affected by this deadly bee parasite. The total funding they put in is $64 million. But recently we've heard from the beekeepers associations and industries, and apparently Stewart Levitt, the senior partner of a leading Sydney law firm, is bringing forward a class action on behalf of a number of beekeepers. That's because their small businesses have basically been destroyed, and they don't feel they've been offered adequate compensation for the losses. I wanted to raise today that this is particularly relevant because the Senate inquiry made a number of recommendations, which had full tripartisan support, about what we needed to do on varroa mite. Recommendation 7 was: The committee recommends the Australian Government, in partnership with other stakeholders, ensures that adequate funding is provided to the National Bee Biosecurity Program. That includes, as a critical component, paying out those who have been affected by loss of or impact to their livelihoods. The class action has estimated that the compensation of around $19 million that has so far been paid to affected apiarists falls short of the estimated impact to their livelihoods, which is between $77 million and $140 million. Remember, some of these estimates don't include losses foregone from hiring your bees out to pollinate crops. This is just the value of the bees as they've been euthanised. While we might be talking about the impact on agricultural production here, going back to the Greens' second reading amendment, I note a number of native beehives have also been destroyed. The New South Wales Department of Primary Industries has rolled out the biggest pest eradication program in our nation's history, putting hundreds of fipronil baiting stations in national parks and in reserves. We are also killing the wild honey bee populations, and we know that fipronil—which I've used previously in my vineyard to kill European wasps—poses a lot of risks to the environment, so this is a very sensitive subject in terms of the environmental impacts. I'm going to conclude by saying this is a classic example of where a much feared outbreak in our country has happened, and it's costing an absolute bomb. There are estimates regarding this getting into a major crop through crop pollinators, and concerns have arisen in recent days that beekeepers in Kempsey have been sending potentially infected hives to pollinate almond crops in Sunraysia. If that is the case, if there are infected bees now in Victoria, you can forget about eradication because it will be off the table. We're going to have to learn to live with this infestation and the cost is going to be in the billions. We heard in the Senate enquiry that it would most likely destroy 90 per cent of Australia's honey bee population. This is a classic example of something that is costing us a bomb, so we support the initiative to give the government more power and more resources to deal with these kinds of outbreaks. 11:26 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise to speak on the Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) Bill 2023 because this bill and the work our government is doing to keep Australia safe will also keep my home state of Tasmania safe. This bill supports the broader priority of strengthening biosecurity by maintaining Australia's reputation as a supplier of safe, high-quality produce while protecting our $96 billion agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries and our $5.7 trillion environmental asset. This is such an important bill for Tasmania and for those Tasmanians who work in agriculture, including our wonderful farmers, who contribute so much to our Australian way of life. They are the lifeblood of the nation, growing and producing what Australians consume every day. Tasmania produces the best natural produce in the world, which is why it is crucial we block overseas pests and dangerous flora and fauna which may bring pests and other biosecurity hazards into our country. At this juncture, I want to acknowledge the leadership of Minister Murray Watt, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and the work he has done and is continuing to do to ensure that our investments are kept safe. I also want to commend his ongoing commitment to this vital sector. The Albanese Labor government is looking to strengthen our biosecurity. Strong and sustainably funded biosecurity is essential to protecting Australia from potentially devastating pest and disease outbreaks as well as safeguarding our national economy, including our agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries; our regional communities; and our unique natural environment, which we all hold so dear. Biosecurity is also fundamental in protecting our international agriculture trade, fisheries and forestry jobs and keeps our regional, rural and remote communities strong. This applies nowhere more than in my home state of Tasmania, where at least 10,000 people work in the agriculture sector, most of them in quite rural and regional areas. They're the lifeblood of their communities. I have a saying—'farming, family and fairness'—and this is what this bill achieves. It protects the livelihood of some 10,000 Tasmanians and their families. These industries make our national economy stronger, and they give us the 13th biggest economy in the world when it comes to this sector. I know how important Brand Tasmania is. One of the reasons it is so good is our strong agricultural industry. Another is our strong border controls and biosecurity controls. Our $96 billion agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries are deeply precious. They're worth $79.3 billion in agriculture, fisheries and forestry exports, $36.5 billion in tourism and 1.6 million jobs across the agricultural supply chain, all spread out across 87,800 farms nationwide. We saw earlier this year that the 2023-24 budget delivers on the Albanese Labor government's election commitment to introduce a long-term, sustainable funding model for biosecurity. The Albanese government is investing more than $1 billion in new funding over the next four years and more than $260 million per year every year after that to strengthen our biosecurity system. The new funding is locked in and permanent, and we hope that those opposite and everyone else in this place will support this bill and the Albanese Labor government's plan for our agriculture industry. It's extremely important because this investment will protect and grow our agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries in a way that is fairer, more equitable and more accountable than ever before. As we heard from the contribution of the previous speaker, we know how important it is to our wine industry, and there's no better wine grown anywhere in this country than in my home state of Tasmania. So it is invaluable for us to have a biosecurity system that keeps pace with today's needs and prepares for the threats of the future. A strong, smart and sustainably funded system will help us manage growing biosecurity risks and help us safeguard Australia's industries, our export trade and our environment. I think we could all agree in this place that efficient biosecurity operations are crucial to meet industry's needs; otherwise, it slows down trade and supply chains, adding costs to industry and consumers. Unfortunately, there are still those out there whose actions put this important industry at risk. We must take all measures as a government to protect Australia from illnesses and diseases such as fruit fly and foot-and-mouth disease. The Albanese government is 100 per cent focused on protecting our industry from those foreign pests. Instances of noncompliance are challenging the Australian government's ability to manage biosecurity risk in an environment that is becoming increasingly complicated due to an increased number of international travellers arriving in Australia and the growth and volume of complexity in Australia's global trade. We all have a role to play to continue to connect with the regions and provide feedback in this chamber. Effective deterrents to noncompliance with Australia's biosecurity laws are particularly relevant post the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, in which noncompliance may have had a significant impact on Australia's public health and vulnerable populations. The measures in this bill will ensure that the penalties available under the Biosecurity Act are effective deterrents against these actions and enable a more proportionate response to noncompliance that puts Australia's human, plant and animal health at risk. The amendments in this bill are necessary to advance Australia's biosecurity laws to enable targeted intervention and effective and proportionate responses to behaviour that may have significant, lasting biosecurity impacts. An outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease would have an estimated direct economic impact over 10 years of around $80 billion. That would devastate the cattle industry. An outbreak of lumpy skin disease would result in an estimated market loss of $7.3 billion per annum across a range of commodities and markets. As a nation, we cannot afford this, because it would ruin livelihoods and affect our economy in such a devastating way, and it would actually destroy lives. People have been on the land for generation after generation, and we have a responsibility to keep those people on the land and to do everything we can to safeguard them. A small-scale outbreak of African swine fever in domestic pigs followed by the eradication of the disease was estimated to cost $117 million to $263 million. An incursion of Xylella fastidiosacould cost the Australian horticultural industry between $1.2 billion and $11.1 billion. We cannot afford for this disease to get into our nursery industry. It damages plants and has increased costs for disease management. Environmental impacts are also likely to be significant and long-lasting. A strengthened biosecurity system not only secures better economic outcomes for producers and related industries but protects Australia's environment, biosecurity and people. I urge everyone in this place to put their communities and their agricultural industries first and to support our regions by supporting the Albanese Labor government's incredibly important bill to keep our industries and the jobs that they provide within our communities safe. There are no more important jobs in Tasmania than those in forestry, farming and vineyards. We are great producers of quality food. Tasmania is known around the world for its wine, cheese, wonderful seafood and even beer. Tasmania is known around the world—and I know Acting Deputy President Chandler will agree with me—as the best producer of food, wine, clean water and great clean energy. Tasmania is the jewel in the crown of Australia when it comes to primary industries. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has been down to Tasmania a number of times. Unfortunately, one of those times was when he had his other hat on as the Minister for Emergency Management. He has already developed a very strong working relationship with those in the primary industries, the forestry industry and the fishing industry. We know that he gets it. Finally, after almost 10 years, we have a minister for primary industries who not only gets it but actually shows real leadership. He understands, as I do, what's at stake. If we are complacent, we will lose jobs, we will devastate local economies and we will kill local communities. We have to do the best we possibly can to protect the industry. I have seen on a program on television a couple of times people inadvertently forgetting to declare what they are bringing into the country. A pest can be brought in by someone who has no understanding of the danger they are bringing into Australia when they don't declare produce that they bring off the plane or off the ship with them. We have to do more. We have to stay ahead of the game. This is so important. As I've said countless times, nothing is more important to my Tasmanian community than biosecurity and ensuring that it is well funded. I appreciate the minister's leadership. I urge you to support this bill. 11:37 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland It's an absolute delight to follow Senator Polley. It was a thoughtful and accurate speech that she just gave. Seriously, I thank Senator Polley for her very kind words. I also thank her for her continued advocacy for the agriculture sector in her home state of Tasmania. As Senator Polley accurately pointed out, agriculture is a very important industry in Tasmania. Arguably more than any other state, Tasmania prides itself on its clean, green agricultural produce and its strong biosecurity protections. I thank Senator Polley and all her Tasmanian colleagues for their efforts in that regard. I want to say a few things in summing up this debate. The Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) Bill 2023 will amend the Biosecurity Act to enhance the government's regulatory regime and strengthen its ability to gather information to assess and manage biosecurity risk and take non-compliance action against those who jeopardise Australia's biosecurity status by breaking the law. Senators will be aware that ever since taking office the Albanese government has strengthened our biosecurity protections. We obviously saw about five weeks after our election a lot of alarm about foot-and-mouth disease reaching Bali, which is a very popular tourist destination for Australians. We took very serious and strong action in partnership with the industry to tighten our biosecurity protections. We lifted penalties. We provided vaccines and other support to Indonesia and other neighbouring countries. We tested our preparedness. As a result, I'm very pleased to say that to this day Australia remains free of both foot-and-mouth disease and lumpy skin disease, but we recognise that the challenges we face as a nation in biosecurity continue to escalate and become more complex. That's why we always need to be examining our responses and our preparedness to biosecurity, and this bill is another part of that. I won't go over in a lot of detail what's contained in this bill because we have done so already, but, in short, this bill will further strengthen and increase the powers and penalties available to our biosecurity officers and the regulatory system as a whole. We have, as I say, already increased the range of some biosecurity penalties, but this bill will take those measures further and put in place quite serious financial penalties for those who do the wrong thing and seek to flout our biosecurity laws. This bill will also increase the powers available to our biosecurity officers to access certain information from people, including from travellers who are arriving in Australian territory on board an international flight or voyage, through the provision of their passport or other travel documents. That's all to increase our ability to really home in on the highest risk travellers and the highest risk products that might be being brought into our country. If they were it would cause great harm to our agriculture industry and also our natural environment. In summing up, I want to respond to a couple of things that have been raised over the course of this debate. This bill, of course, also complements the Albanese government's sustainable funding model for biosecurity. I note that some speakers—in particular, Senator McKenzie—raised concerns about the way that the government is proposing to fund our biosecurity system. I actually found it quite surprising that Senator McKenzie, or any member of the opposition, would want to have a debate about biosecurity funding as part of the debate on this bill because, on taking office in May last year, we learned that Australia's biosecurity budget was on track to fall by over $100 million per year due to the short-term funding decisions that had been made by the previous government. So even though we all know that Australia is facing increased biosecurity risks, when you look at what the previous government were budgeting for, they were actually budgeting to cut our biosecurity funding by about $100 million per year. That was grossly irresponsible and another train wreck left behind by the former government that we have had to fix. I'm very pleased that we are in the process of fixing that right now, in particular as a result of the decisions we took in this year 's budget. After lots of lobbying from me and also the agriculture sector—I pay them their due for the efforts that they put in—I was delighted that in this year's budget the Prime Minister and Treasurer and our entire cabinet agreed to provide over $1 billion more for Australia's first financially sustainable biosecurity system. That means that, rather than having the biosecurity budget fall from year to year, it's actually going to be stable into the long term without the need to come back, cap in hand, year after year, seeking money to prop up our biosecurity system, which was the system the opposition left behind when they lost office. The vast majority of this increased funding comes from two sources: increased government funding at $350 million each year and increased fees and charges on importers at $363 million annually. Already, in the first six weeks following 1 July, when these changes started, our regime of increased fees and charges on importers has raised more than $51 million. We often hear members of the opposition and some in the agriculture sector saying that importers should pay more for biosecurity. The Albanese government is actually making that happen. We're not just talking about it, as the former government did when they talked about bringing in container levies, which they then scrapped when they had the power to do something about it in government. Of course, now that they are in opposition, they are saying again that they are going to do it. They're all talk, no action. The Albanese government is actually delivering the change that the sector has been calling for. There is $51 million more, just in six weeks, coming from importers, because they're finally paying the costs of the biosecurity services that they receive from our department. So it's not just talk; it's real action from the Albanese government to protect our biosecurity system. I know that Senator McKenzie and other people in the sector have raised this issue about the biosecurity protection levy that we are planning to introduce from 1 July next year. What that actually involves is that we are asking producers to make a modest contribution towards sustainable biosecurity funding. It amounts to about $47 million each year or a mere six per cent of the total funding package. We're not asking farmers and other producers to pay an exorbitant amount. We're asking farmers and producers to contribute a very modest amount towards protecting their own livelihoods through a strong biosecurity system while, at the same time, increasing fees and charges on importers and having taxpayers contribute more to the system—much more than what we're asking producers and farmers to contribute. I think it is reasonable to ask producers to pay a modest amount to protect their livelihoods through strong biosecurity systems. As I say, the changes that we're introducing will see importers bear 48 per cent of the cost of our biosecurity system, taxpayers bear 44 per cent and producers bear a mere six per cent, with a little bit left over from others contributing as well. I think that is a reasonable split of the contributions towards a biosecurity system and I point out again that the $51 million that we've already raised in six weeks from increased fees and charges on importers—something the sector has been calling for, something farmers have been calling for that the coalition never delivered but a Labor government is delivering—is more than the $47 million we are asking producers to contribute each year. So, as I say, I think that is a reasonable split of responsibility. I might also very briefly respond to some of the comments from Senator Whish-Wilson, who I know has a genuine concern about environmental biosecurity in particular. I can assure Senator Whish-Wilson and all who are concerned particularly about the growing threat of red imported fire ants that, as a South-East Queenslander, I'm very familiar with this concern. It's something we've been dealing with for a very long time, and I know the Queensland government has been doing a good job trying to eradicate it. I'm very pleased to advise that, at the most recent meeting of federal, state and territory agriculture ministers, all ministers agreed that eradication of red imported fire ants remains a huge national priority. Almost every state and territory has now joined with the Commonwealth in bringing forward the funding that we had previously allocated in future years to have that money spent this year so that we can actually increase the momentum on that eradication program this financial year. Money that had previously been allocated to be spent on fire ants next year and the year after has actually been brought forward by the Commonwealth and a number of states and territories to this financial year. That means we will now be spending up to four times as much this financial year as was originally planned to be spent. I understand that there are some in the community who have concerns about the effort being put in here, but quadrupling the amount of money that was originally going to be spent on this is a real effort and a sign of how seriously we're taking this threat. The other state and territory agriculture ministers and I will need to go through budget processes to seek funding for the future, but we absolutely recognise that this as a real threat that we need to remain committed to. I appreciate the support from the chamber for this bill. It is another step in the Albanese government's plans to continue strengthening our biosecurity responses. Australia's biosecurity system is recognised as among the best in the world. This bill and our new sustainable funding model will ensure that we maintain our reputation as a supplier of high-quality produce while protecting our farmers, our economy and our environment from biosecurity risks into the future. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Whish-Wilson on behalf of the Australian Greens be agreed to. Question negatived. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 The question is that the bill be read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee 17 11:49 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I have two questions. The first is of the minister: could this bill be used to discriminate against arrivals who have chosen not to receive injections related to COVID-19 measures? As part of that, does this bill allow travel documents to include information based on vaccine status? 11:49 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'm just seeking some further advice on that, Senator Roberts, but I'm certainly not aware of any intention to use these powers in that way or even whether the powers could be used that way. I know that there were some concerns raised by a couple of the parliamentary committees about how these powers might be used and the risk of discrimination that might be posed. I think we were certainly able to persuade those committees that there would be no such ability to discriminate. You may have seen, Senator Roberts, that one of the things this bill is doing is providing biosecurity officers with increased powers to seek passports from people, but that's really about trying to check where they have been and whether they're repeat offenders when it comes to biosecurity risks rather than checking on people because of their particular racial background, their COVID vaccination background or anything like that. It's more about, as I said, allowing biosecurity officers to trace when people have been to very high-risk locations or if they're repeat offenders with biosecurity, in which case I'm sure you'd agree that they're the people who we really need to focus our biosecurity efforts on. 11:51 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Minister, have you received that advice yet about my specific question? 11:51 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The proposed amendments are intended to ensure that the data collected in relation to biosecurity interventions with all incoming travellers can be recorded and analysed consistently to support a more intelligence- and evidence-based approach to predicting and managing the biosecurity risk posed by future traveller cohorts. As such, the requirement to provide a passport or other travel document to a biosecurity officer upon request would apply to all persons regardless of their ethnicity, their national or social origin or their vaccination status. The powers that are being granted here cannot be, or are not intended to be, used to go after particular people based on any characteristic about them. They can be applied to all people, regardless of their vaccination status, their ethnicity or anything like that. I think that you can be confident that your concerns would not be carried out as a result of these powers. 11:52 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland You said 'could' and then hesitated. So that means these powers cannot be used to discriminate against arrivals who have chosen not to receive injections for COVID-19? 11:52 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland That's right. The powers cannot be used to discriminate against anyone for any reason, including their vaccination status. 11:52 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland My second question is: should there be time limits on the time which health information about an individual is retained? 11:53 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland In fact, Senator Roberts, this bill does not provide for the retention of data at all. That being the case, the concern that you have does not even arise. It's not a matter of—sorry, I'll just clarify this. There's nothing in the bill that allows data to be retained for health purposes and so the issue of how long data could be retained for health purposes doesn't arise, because it can't be retained for that purpose at all. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 264449 There being no other senators wishing to contribute in the committee stage, the question before the chair is that the bill stand as printed. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendments; report adopted. Third Reading 18 11:54 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2023 18

Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2023

Second Reading 18 11:55 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I rise to speak on the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2023. The coalition supports the intent of this bill. It is, however, somewhat ironic, as this bill makes changes to a range of Commonwealth statutes that relate to oversight, but, until the coalition intervened, the scrutiny processes around the bill itself were less than satisfactory. The original intent as communicated to us was that the entirety of this bill would be referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, making a further committee inquiry unnecessary. For whatever reason, that did not happen. Instead, only a single technical provision of the bill relating to a change in the name of the South Australian Independent Commission Against Corruption was ultimately referred to the PJCIS. Understandably, the PJCIS declined to conduct an inquiry into an inconsequential amendment on name change. As a result, the bill almost avoided scrutiny completely. Luckily, at the eleventh hour, and at the urging of the coalition, the government realised that error and the bill was referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. It is important that such a process is conducted because, while much of the bill is procedural, we are dealing with important and complicated matters relating to criminal law and national security. Whenever legislation touches on areas like the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act and the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act, as this bill does, it should be subject to careful examination by a parliamentary committee, which can examine how proposed changes will work in practice. The only way to do this is to hear from agencies likely to be affected by the legislation. We all in this place have an interest in avoiding unintended consequences being baked in to Commonwealth law. Schedule 1 of this bill will amend the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act to close a loophole relating to the obligation imposed on reporting entities to register with AUSTRAC. Currently, that obligation can only be enforced if AUSTRAC becomes aware of the failure to register within 12 months of the contravention. The amendments in schedule 1 will allow AUSTRAC to more effectively enforce contraventions. In addition, the amendments in schedule 1 would clarify that sensitive AUSTRAC information that is shared with partner agencies cannot then be presented to courts and tribunals by those agencies. Finally, the amendments in schedule 1 would authorise the AUSTRAC CEO to use computer programs, including automated programs, to take non-adverse administrative actions, such as registration renewals. Explanatory materials note the need for sophisticated internal business rules and quality assurance and refer to high-risk decisions. Consultation on the rollout and implementation of any computer-assisted decision-making will be essential if the changes are to be effective. It is the execution that counts here. We will monitor these changes to see how they play out over time. Amendments to the Foreign Evidence Act in schedule 5 of the bill will mean that foreign evidence is no longer required to be certified by a 'judge, magistrate or officer' of the relevant country. Instead, testimony may also be signed or certified by 'a person authorised to administer an oath or affirmation or put a person under an obligation to tell the truth' in or of the foreign country to which the request was made. This change would mean that foreign evidence will be admissible in a wider range of circumstances. The amendments proposed in schedule 6 of the bill would provide the Attorney-General with a discretionary power to refuse consent to a request or an application for transfer to or from Australia at an earlier stage in the process. This is intended to reduce procedural overheads associated with the international prison transfer process. The Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act allows eligible judges or nominated AAT members to issue warrants, orders and approvals to use certain covert or coercive investigative powers. To provide oversight to this process, both Victoria and Queensland have established public interest monitors who can appear at hearings of applications for warrants and, essentially, be a contradictor. The current legislation prevents those public interest monitors from making submissions relating to part 5.3 supervisory orders—those being control orders, extended supervision orders and interim supervision orders issued under part 5.3 of the Criminal Code, including in relation to matters concerning terrorist offenders. The provisions in schedule 8 of the bill would allow the public interest monitors in Victoria and Queensland to make submissions relating to part 5.3 supervisory orders. Again, we will monitor these changes to see how they play out in practice. Changes to schedule 9 of the bill would allow the commissioner to suspend a person's participation in the National Witness Protection Program in circumstances where the participant requests it or where the commissioner forms the view that the participant has done or intends to do something that will limit their ability to protect and assist the participant. Having looked at these changes through the committee process, we are of the view that the changes provide appropriate flexibility to the commissioner to suspend participation where necessary. In most cases, it is likely to be the commissioner, informed by the officers on the ground who actually provide the assistance and protection, who is best placed to make decisions about how the act should be administered in any particular case. I understand that the government will move some technical amendments to this schedule to address issues identified by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. We will support those amendments. I also understand that the Australian Greens will move a range of amendments to the powers conferred by this schedule which we do not consider are necessary. As I said earlier, the coalition agrees with the intent of this bill. We are glad that the bill was scrutinised by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. That this bill received such scrutiny is thanks to the vigilance of coalition senators and members. As a rule, we believe that parliamentarians should not be asked to change Australia's criminal or national security legislation without scrutinising the impact of those changes. Of course, where a bill has urgent and important national security implications, we will support the timely passage of appropriate legislation, but this was not one of those cases. We will support the passage of this legislation through the parliament, and I commend the bill to the Senate. 12:02 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak to the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2023. I note that the bill seeks to, in the words of the attorney, update, improve and clarify the operation of certain provisions in the Crimes Act as well as other acts, including the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002, the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006, the Criminal Code Act 1995, the Criminology Research Act 1971, the International Transfer of Prisoners Act 1997, the Foreign Evidence Act 1994 and certain other acts. The bill is largely inoffensive, making a series of minor and technical amendments, including correcting some obvious errors, clarifying and, to some extent, improving a range of government, judicial, regulatory and other oversight processes. Thankfully, the bill has been the subject of some consideration by both the Human Rights Committee and the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, and it is as a result of concerns raised in that course of that consultation and review that the Greens will be moving a series of amendments dealing with the threshold for suspension of protection and assistance of people in witness protection. The revocation and suspension of protection assistance is of very real concern to the Greens. People who have the benefit of witness protection need to ensure that due process will be undertaken before that is suspended. The amendments will also consider the changes proposed by this bill to international prisoner transfers, and there are very real concerns we have at the moment about two prisoners who are the subjects of potential international transfers: Mr Duggan and Mr Assange. This bill has now been the subject of two reports from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. They've raised significant concerns, especially in relation to the suspension of witness protection and assistance. Senators will be aware that the Witness Protection Act 1994 is a critical tool in protecting vulnerable witnesses who may have had death threats or other serious threats made against them. The protection that's provided under the Witness Protection Act is essential for the operation of our judicial system, and, indeed, it's often essential for the work of law enforcement agencies. This bill proposes that a power be given to the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police to suspend a participant's protection and assistance, either at the request of the participant or at the discretion of the AFP. In relation to the AFP's proposed power to suspend, the bill proposes that it can be suspended 'if, in the opinion of the commissioner, the participant has done or intends to do something that limits or would limit the commissioner's ability to provide' that protection and assistance. The length of suspension is, of course, proposed in the bill to be open to the AFP commissioner or the AFP commissioner's delegate to determine. I'll read briefly from the committee's first review of that: Committee view 1.41 The committee welcomes those measures in the bill that would promote human rights, particularly expanding the scope of the mandatory ground of refusal with respect to mutual assistance requests— and public interest monitor matters. 1.42 However, the committee notes that the bill, by providing the Commissioner with the discretion to suspend a participant's protection or assistance in the National Witness Protection Program, engages and may limit the rights to life and security of person. The committee considers further information is required to assess the compatibility of this measure with these rights, and as such seeks the Attorney-General's advice as to: (a) what types of actions or circumstances would limit the AFP's ability to provide adequate protection or assistance to a participant— in other words, what's the trigger— (b) why it is appropriate that a participant's protection and assistance be suspended where they do something that 'limits' the AFP's ability to provide protection and whether this threshold should be higher, such as 'significantly limits'; (c) why it is necessary for the Commissioner's power to suspend protection and assistance to extend to possible future actions of a participant; (d) how the Commissioner would assess an appropriate time period for the suspension to have effect and whether the Commissioner would be required to regularly review the case to assess whether circumstances have changed such that protection and assistance should be reinstated; (e) why decisions to suspend protection or assistance made by the Commissioner personally are not reviewable, noting the importance of the availability of review as a safeguard and the potentially significant consequences for a participants' rights of such a decision; and (f) whether any less rights restrictive alternatives could achieve the same stated objective. The Attorney-General's office did engage with the committee and provided at least a partial response to the concerns raised by the committee. In a further report, the committee noted those responses but remained concerned in relation to this matter. In paragraph 2.18 of that second report, they said: In relation to providing the Commissioner with the discretion to suspend a participant's protection or assistance in the National Witness Protection Program, the committee considers that the measure likely pursues a legitimate objective for the purposes of international human rights law. That is, to increase the Commissioner's flexibility to enable the temporary suspension, rather than termination, of protection or assistance, and would be rationally connected to this objective. I pause there to state that the Greens understand that as a rational basis for this. Rather than having only the nuclear button of terminating witness protection, allowing for circumstances where witness protection can be suspended does have a legitimate legislative purpose. The committee went on to say: The committee considers the measure is accompanied by some important safeguards. In particular, the committee welcomes the Attorney-General's undertaking to amend the bill to ensure decisions made by the Commissioner personally to suspend protection or assistance pursuant to proposed section 17B may be subject to internal review. The committee considers access to review to be an important safeguard in light of the potential severity of the consequences of suspending protection and assistance on participants' rights to life and security of person. I'll have more to say on that aspect in the committee process. I'll finish with this from the human rights committee. They said at 2.19: However, the committee notes that some concerns remain as to whether the measure is sufficiently circumscribed given the broad scope of the Commissioner's powers and the potentially low basis for suspending protection or assistance. As such, the committee considers that, depending on how the suspension powers are exercised in practice, there may be a risk that the proposed limitations on the rights to life and security of the person would not, in all circumstances, be proportionate. Then the committee proposed suggested action, including considering the proportionality of that measure, and suggested the proportionality outcome may be assisted by amending the bill to: (a) require the Commissioner to regularly review a suspension decision … (b) require the Commissioner to revoke a suspension of protection and assistance where the Commissioner is satisfied that the circumstances of the case that justified the suspension no longer apply; and (c) increase the threshold for suspending protection and assistance to actions that 'significantly limit' (rather than 'limit') … It recommended that this house take on board those concerns. The Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee also reviewed the bill and was assisted by a number of submissions largely from government agencies but also by an extremely helpful submission from the Law Council of Australia. A number of concerns were raised in the legal and constitutional affairs review of the bill, one of which was the proposal in part 3 of schedule 1 of the bill to empower the AUSTRAC CEO to arrange for the use of computer-assisted programs to assist with administrative decision-making—a matter, of course, which would concern many senators if it were an expanded role of computer-assisted decision-making. The Greens, of course, have consulted in relation to this aspect of the bill, have looked into the scope of the proposed computer-assisted decision-making and are reassured that the only substantive decision made using ADM is whether to grant an application for registration. If there's a decision made to refuse an application, it will require ASIC staff to then take over the decision-making, so the only assisted decision-making that can be made is decision-making that benefits an applicant. In those circumstances, we see on balance that that element of the bill can be supported. The Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee also noted the concerns raised by the Law Council in their helpful submission and noted that the Law Council agreed with recommendations made by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, but the Law Council went further and suggested that the bill should also be amended to require a decision-maker who is considering matters in relation to international transfer of prisoners to have regard to a series of other matters. With regard to procedural fairness, the Law Council made a number of suggestions to improve the bill, that is: there be a stipulated time period between the prisoner being notified of the proposed terms of the transfer and the Attorney-General making a decision to refuse consent; the decision-maker 'have regard to any submission made by the prisoner under Section 16 of the ITP Act'; the decision-maker be obliged 'to provide written reasons for a decision to the prisoner and transfer country', with information on the merits review process; all available information about the issues that will determine the prisoner's matter be provided to them or their representative 'to ensure they can effectively advocate their case'; and allowances are made for the 'communication of a decision to refuse consent to a transfer and the reasons for a decision' to vulnerable prisoners, including those 'with limited literacy and culturally and/or linguistically diverse backgrounds'. Those are all matters that the Greens see significant merit in. We have had some consultation with the Attorney General's office, who have suggested that requiring written reasons for a decision to be made to the transfer country would create potential international repercussions, and we're not at this stage progressing those amendments, but amendments that pick up the balance of the concerns by the Law Council we will be pressing in the committee process. I raise one other matter the Law Council brought to the attention of the committee when it reviewed it. That was the nature of these ad hoc amendments to a number of bills but in particular to the telecommunications intercept act. The Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act has been the subject of innumerable amendments over the almost 4½ decades since it was legislated. Those amendments have, inevitably, seen a power creep to the security agencies, providing greater powers to intercept and access telecommunications, and more secretive powers. The Law Council considered that the ad hoc amendments being presented in this bill highlight the need to expand the role of the independent contradictor—that is, a public interest advocate, who is there in court to test the applications being made by security agencies—which is currently established in a fairly weak form under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act. I'll quote from the Law Council submission: The role should go beyond applications for journalist information warrants to other applications for intrusive powers under the TIA Act. Consideration of the latter alternative will improve the oversight of intrusive powers across the board under the TIA Act. The Greens agree with those concerns raised by the Law Council. A number of those matters will be addressed in the committee process. There are some positive elements in this bill; we don't want to lose sight of those, and the Greens will be supporting the passage of this bill through the Senate. But in relation to the international-transfer-of-prisoner provisions can I say in my concluding comments that we have now seen two high-profile cases: one in the Australian jurisdiction, with Mr Duggan, who was sought to be extradited from Australia to the United States; and one in the case of Julian Assange, who the United States is seeking to extradite from the United Kingdom. The rights of prisoners are often almost negated in the extradition and the transfer-of-prisoner process. Indeed, the human rights of prisoners should be considered as a fundamental aspect when we're considering the international transfer of prisoners. Jurisdictions that may otherwise be friendly with the Australian government, such as the United States, have prison systems that would fail even the most rudimentary human rights review by Australian authorities—brutal prison systems. I believe Australian governments expect there to be tougher and higher standards applied by Australian governments before they agree to Australian citizens being extradited to the United States. 12:17 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I rise to speak briefly in relation to the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2023, and I want to flesh out a point that was made by my very good friend Senator Payne in relation to the scrutiny of this bill. The reality is that the government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to actually refer to this bill to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, on which I and Senator Shoebridge sit. That baffles me—it genuinely baffles me that it was so difficult to get this bill referred to the committee which myself and my good friend Senator Shoebridge sit on. That's because the work of that committee is extraordinarily important. Those listening to this debate, those in the chamber, would have received an insight into the important work that Senate committees undertake. If you're going to propose amendments that have an impact with respect to Australia's laws relating to anti money-laundering; if you're going to propose amendments to laws relating to witness protection schemes; if you're going to propose amendments to the laws relating to the circumstances in which internationally-held prisoners, or prisoners held in overseas countries, may be transferred to Australia; and if you're going to propose amendments to laws relating to the tendering into evidence of depositions and affidavits which are sworn overseas, then those issues that need to be carefully scrutinised by the committee that has been given, delegated, the role of scrutiny by this place—by this chamber. Those laws need to be carefully scrutinised by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. My friend Senator Shoebridge has listed a number of legitimate concerns which should be aired and debated, and which will be debated, in this place. The fact is that those concerns may well have never seen the light of day but for the fact that eventually the government—dragged kicking and screaming—relented to this bill being subject to scrutiny by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. However this chamber lands in relation to those amendments put forward by the Australian Greens, at the very least at the end of that process this chamber will have discharged its responsibility of scrutiny and discharged its responsibility of closely reviewing changes to these fundamental aspects of Australian law. Senator Shoebridge 169119 And there are now government amendments that came as a result of it. Senator SCARR 282997 I take that interjection from Senator Shoebridge. There are now government amendments that have arisen from that scrutiny process. So, whilst I'm not asking Senator Brown to give a mea culpa in terms of this process, I sincerely hope that the government reflects on this situation. Just taking on Senator Shoebridge's point in relation to government amendments, I'll quote from the report, which I contributed to through my membership as the deputy chair of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. The 'committee view' in relation to this bill in paragraph 1.49 states: In general, submitters supported the operational efficiencies that the bill would create and in particular, the Law Council suggested areas in which the bill could be further improved. The committee urges the Australian government—and where relevant AUSTRAC—to take these suggestions into consideration prior to the bill being debated in the Senate. That's the result of the review by the committee which both Senator Shoebridge and I sit on. Paragraph 1.50 states: The committee expresses concern with the bill's provision for procedural fairness, as raised by the Selection of Bills Committee and the Law Council, in relation to the ITP Act. The committee agrees that the primary legislation should set out a non-exclusive list of considerations to which the Attorney-General must have regard … Paragraph 1.51 states: The committee acknowledges the advice from the AGD— and this takes on Senator Shoebridge's point— that it will be proposing amendments to the bill to take into account many of the concerns identified by parliamentary comments. I'll read that again. It states: The committee acknowledges the advice from the AGD that it will be proposing amendments to the bill to take into account many of the concerns identified by parliamentary comments. The committee welcomes this advice, which will improve the bill. That should be how this place works. Bills, specifically of this nature dealing with criminal law, should in the usual and ordinary course be referred to the relevant committee so that it can discharge its scrutiny function. I note that Senator Shoebridge noted that the government is proposing amendments to this bill. I do hope there is some learning in relation to this on the government side. When committees in this place scrutinise legislation they typically provide amendments that will enhance, improve and deal with unintended consequences contained in bills. I do hope that this process causes some reflection on the part of the government. 12:23 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I'd like to start by thanking Senate colleagues for their contribution to the debate on the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2023. I also thank the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for the work that they have done on this bill. The bill before us will update, improve and clarify the intended operation of key provisions to support the proper administration of government law enforcement regulatory oversight and judicial processes. This will improve outcomes for non-Commonwealth government stakeholders, such as members of the public who have come in contact with the judicial system, international partners, and state and territory governments. By making small and clarifying amendments, the bill will streamline and enhance the everyday work of government agencies, improving their ability to deliver outcomes for the Australian government. At this point I indicate that the government will be moving some amendments. I note that Senator Shoebridge will be moving amendments, which we'll be opposing. I also table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to this bill, which is the addendum response to matters raised by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. I commend the bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee 23 12:25 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government's amendments to be moved to this bill. I seek leave to move government amendments (1) to (6) on a sheet ZA212 together. Leave granted. Senator CAROL BROWN F49 I move: (1) Schedule 9, page 24 (before line 3), before item 3, insert: 3A Section 3 Insert: Assistant Commissioner means an Assistant Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police. (2) Schedule 9, item 4, page 27 (after line 3), at the end of section 17B, add: Suspension decision may only be made by delegate or sub-delegate (9) A decision under subsection 17B(1) to suspend the protection and assistance provided to a participant under the NWPP (other than such a decision made as a result of a review under section 17C) may only be made by a person to whom the power to make the decision has been delegated, or sub-delegated, under section 25. (3) Schedule 9, item 4, page 27 (lines 5 to 12), omit subsection 17C(1) (including the note), substitute: (1) This section applies to a decision under subsection 17B(1) to suspend the protection and assistance provided to a participant under the NWPP (a suspension decision), other than such a decision made as a result of a review under this section. (4) Schedule 9, item 4, page 27 (line 15), omit "a Deputy", substitute "the". (5) Schedule 9, item 4, page 27 (lines 16 and 17), omit "the person to whom the application is made", substitute "the Commissioner". (6) Schedule 9, item 5, page 27 (after line 33), after subsection 25(6), insert: (7) The Commissioner's powers under section 17C: (a) may only be delegated to a member of the Australian Federal Police who holds or occupies a designated position; and (b) may, in relation to a particular decision under subsection 17B(1), be exercised by a delegate only if that delegate holds a rank higher than the rank held by the delegate, or sub-delegate, who made the decision under subsection 17B(1). (8) Subject to subsection 17B(9) of this Act, sections 34AA, 34AB and 34A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 apply in relation to a sub-delegation in a corresponding way to the way in which they apply in relation to a delegation. The bill currently provides for the inclusion of a new section 17B in the Witness Protection Act 1994, which allows the AFP commissioner to temporarily suspend the provision of protection and assistance where the participant does or intends to do something that would limit the AFP's ability to provide them with protection and assistance. The government amendments propose minor changes to the bill to ensure that internal merits review is available for all decisions relating to the suspension of protection and assistance under new subsection 17B(1). To achieve this, the government amendments would require that decisions to suspend the provision of protection and assistance under new subsection 17B(1) be made by a delegate or subdelegate of the AFP commissioner, unless the decision is being made as a result of a review under new section 17C. Ensuring these decisions are made by a delegate or subdelegate ensures that there is always a more senior officer available to review all suspension decisions under new subsection 17B(1). The government amendments will not alter the fact that decisions to suspend protection and assistance in situations where the suspension was requested by the participant will not be reviewable. It is appropriate that merits review does not apply in these situations, as decisions made at the request of the participant are unlikely to have significant adverse impacts on the rights and interests of that person. The government amendments would also insert a definition of 'assistant commissioner' into the Witness Protection Act. The definition would clarify that 'assistant commissioner' is taken to mean an assistant commissioner of the AFP. This is consistent with the definitions for 'commissioner' and 'deputy commissioner' in the Witness Protection Act. I commend the amendments to the Senate. 12:28 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales The opposition supports these amendments. 12:29 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales The Greens don't oppose these amendments and think that they have some marginal benefits. But I would ask the government, through you, Deputy President: what was the government's rationale for not adopting the Law Council of Australia's recommendations to set the threshold for suspension of witness protection around the behaviour of or concerns in relation to the person who had the benefit of protection, instead of limiting the capacity to provide protection through the AFP? Why did the government reject the higher threshold and significantly limit the ability of the AFP to provide protection, given that the removal of witness protection can literally be a life-and-death matter? 12:30 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. Regarding the proposal, it's appropriate for protection and assistance to be suspended in circumstances where the AFP's ability to provide protection and assistance may be limited. This is because any limitation on the AFP's ability to provide protection and assistance would present a serious risk to both the participant and the AFP, as it could have serious consequences—for example, result in death or serious injury to the participant. 12:30 Senator 169119 New South Wales SHOEBRIDGE () (): Surely removing witness protection could have serious consequences to the witness, including death and serious injury? I'm unable to understand why the government didn't accept the recommendation of the higher threshold before witness protection is removed. It's one thing to say that the witness's behaviour may limit the ability of the AFP to provide the protection. But surely withdrawing the protection is a far more drastic step. I can't understand, from the government's response, why that higher threshold wasn't adopted. If the witness's behaviour may have a marginal impact in limiting the ability to provide that protection, the idea that the AFP commissioner could withdraw witness protection in those circumstances and potentially see someone exposed to deathly threats seems wrong in policy. 12:31 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania My understanding is that the protection is removed only in situations when the AFP's ability is impeded. 12:32 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I come back to the question: that could be a very marginal limitation. And the Law Council said, 'Set the threshold higher; make it a significant limitation before witness protection can be withdrawn.' I ask again why the government continues to resist that higher threshold before the protection is revoked. 12:32 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania Again, I will reiterate that the protection is removed only where the AFP's ability is impeded, and it's appropriate for protection assistance to be suspended in circumstances where the AFP's ability to provide protection and assistance may be limited. 12:32 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales That's a 'computer says no' answer. Having tried three times, I'll probably move on to my next question. One of the other proposals from the Law Society was to, instead of having a discretion for the commissioner to revoke suspension where the reasons for suspension no longer apply, make it mandatory to return the protection where the reasons for suspension no longer apply. What's the rationale for giving the AFP commissioner or their delegate a discretion to not provide the protection, to not reinstate the protection, where the reasons it was revoked have been removed? In what circumstances is the government proposing that witnesses continue to be exposed to the risk—often to their life or their health and their safety and that of their families—where the rationale for the suspension has been removed? Why would you let the AFP commissioner continue to allow witnesses to have no protection? 12:34 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I'm advised it's to allow operational flexibility. 12:34 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales We've come back to the 'computer says no' response. This is almost an articulation of why we're concerned by computer assisted decision-making, which is another aspect of this bill. Is the government proposing to give the AFP commissioner flexibility to leave people without the benefit of witness protection simply for operational efficiencies when there has been a prior determination that they should have witness protection—that is, where they have been engaged in some conduct that limits capacity, that conduct is removed and the reasons are no longer there? Is the government seriously putting operational flexibility ahead of the life and safety of witnesses? 12:35 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. Suspensions from the National Witness Protection Program are temporary in nature, and the purpose of these measures is to ensure the rapid reinstatement of protection and assistance for a participant. Again, I will just restate that it is important that the AFP have operational flexibility. 12:35 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales The computers again said no, Deputy President! The question is: why are you putting the operational flexibility of the AFP ahead of the health, and often the life, of witnesses for whom there has been a previous decision that they require witness protection? If the behaviour or the concerns that led to the suspension have been removed, why is the government going to permit the AFP to continue to withhold witness protection? Is the government at all concerned that giving the AFP commissioner that discretion may lead to a tragedy? And do you accept the potential fatal consequences of not providing witness protection? 12:36 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I will start by indicating that I don't accept your statements, Senator Shoebridge. What's important to note here—and I'm sure you already know this—is that suspensions from the Witness Protection Program are temporary in nature, and the purpose of these measures is to ensure rapid reinstatement of protection and assistance for a participant. While a suspension is in place, protection and assistance can still be provided to the benefit of the participant if the commissioner is satisfied that it is necessary and appropriate to do so in the circumstances. 12:37 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I'm yet to understand why you would permit the AFP commissioner, or their delegate to continue, on a discretionary basis, to suspend witness protection to a vulnerable witness, and often to their family, when the rationale for the initial suspension has been removed. It's impossible to understand from the government's responses why on earth you're allowing the AFP commissioner to leave vulnerable witnesses without that protection when the original rationale for the suspension has been removed. I could ask again, but I'll probably get another one of those non sequiturs in response. I'll just leave my disappointment on the record. I note, for the government, that if you think this is a good decision—to leave open the discretion and not to provide witness protection in these circumstances—then you take on board the future risk to witnesses who were denied protection as a result of this decision by the government today. You take on board those risks. Remember that the only reason people are put into witness protection in the first place is because there's a significant risk to the life of them or their family and their loved ones. Not reinstating that protection when the reason for suspension has been removed seems to be bloody-mindedness—nothing short of bloody-mindedness. Could I ask the government why they also rejected the proposal from the Law Council to have regular reviews of suspensions of protection and assistance? What possible basis is there not to require a regular review of suspension, given that we're talking about a life-and-death matter? 12:39 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. To answer your last point, suspension from the Witness Protection Program is only temporary in nature. That's the reason the government have taken that position. I would also add that in practice the AFP would continue to consider the circumstances of each case to assess whether it is appropriate for the suspension to remain in force or whether it should be revoked, and the protection and assistance reinstated. 12:40 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales What's the time limit on suspension? What's the maximum period people can have their protection suspended for? [Inaudible] Is it forever? 12:40 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania There's no time limit because we need to enable the AFP to have operational flexibility. 12:41 Senator 169119 New South Wales SHOEBRIDGE () (): So, rest assured, they are only temporary—but they can be permanent! And don't worry about legislative protections because we want to give AFP operational flexibility! Is that the government's response? 12:41 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania No, it's not the government's response, Senator Shoebridge. The new subsection 17B(3) provides that the duration of the suspension must be reasonable in all circumstances, and this goes to providing operational flexibility in determining the duration of the suspension and extending or revoking as is required. Senator Shoebridge 169119 I've lost the will to live. The CHAIR 287062 I put the question that amendments (1) to (6) on sheet ZA212, moved by leave together by the minister, be agreed to. Question agreed to. 12:42 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2061 together: (1) Schedule 6, item 2, page 17 (after line 19), after subsection 19(2), insert: (2A) Without limiting the matters that the Attorney-General may consider in deciding whether to refuse consent under subsection (1), the Attorney-General must consider: (a) the application made by the prisoner (or the prisoner's representative) under section 16; and (b) the terms of the transfer proposed by the transfer country; and (c) the matters mentioned in subsection (2B). (2B) The matters are the following: (a) the prisoner's welfare; (b) the extent of any family and community supports that the prisoner would have in the transfer country, including whether the prisoner has any children residing in Australia or the transfer country; (c) if the prisoner has a medical condition—the services for the medical condition that would be available to the prisoner in the transfer country; (d) if the prisoner is a person with disability—the disability services that would be available to the prisoner in the transfer country; (e) the education services that would be available to the prisoner in the transfer country; (f) the accommodation and employment services that would be available to the prisoner in the transfer country at the end of the prisoner's sentence of imprisonment. (2) Schedule 6, page 18 (after line 33), after item 4, insert: 4A After subsection 20(3) Insert: (3A) Without limiting the matters that the Attorney-General may consider in deciding under subsection (3) whether to consent to the transfer of the prisoner on the terms proposed by the transfer country, the Attorney-General must consider: (a) the application made by the prisoner (or the prisoner's representative) under section 16; and (b) the terms of the transfer proposed by the transfer country; and (c) the matters mentioned in subsection (3B). (3B) The matters are the following: (a) the prisoner's welfare; (b) the extent of any family and community supports that the prisoner would have in the transfer country, including whether the prisoner has any children residing in Australia or the transfer country; (c) if the prisoner has a medical condition—the services for the medical condition that would be available to the prisoner in the transfer country; (d) if the prisoner is a person with disability—the disability services that would be available to the prisoner in the transfer country; (e) the education services that would be available to the prisoner in the transfer country; (f) the accommodation and employment services that would be available to the prisoner in the transfer country at the end of the prisoner's sentence of imprisonment. These amendments taken together add in a number of matters that need to be considered by the Attorney-General in making a decision on transferring a prisoner to other countries. They include explicit consideration of matters including a prisoner's welfare, family and community support, medical conditions and disability, and the ability to receive appropriate care for these education, accommodation and employment services post-release. The explicit articulation of matters to be considered was, in fact, proposed by the Law Council in their submission to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee's inquiry into the bill. It included a specific requirement for the decision-maker to have any submissions made by the prisoner put before them and considered. We could see this as a very abstract matter but, as I said in my second reading contribution, we've currently got two prisoners—Mr Duggan, here, and Mr Assange in the UK—both of whom the US government are seeking to have extradited and transferred to the US prison system and the US justice system. On any view, putting additional protections articulating the matters that the Attorney should consider before making those decisions—in a manner suggested not by some revolutionary part of our society but by the Law Council of Australia—and putting in place a set of non-exhaustive matters for the Attorney to take into account seems like sensible due process. There's huge controversy at the moment about the transfer of those two prisoners. I know myself how many thousands and thousands of Australians are concerned that Julian Assange's health and welfare will be irreparably prejudiced. In fact, his life is at risk as a result of a potential transfer from the UK to the US. I also know Mr Duggan's family, including his kids, have said the same about his transfer. We believe, consistent with what the Law Council have said, that these matters need to be before the Attorney before there is consent to a prison transfer. We're not saying that they are determinative of the prison transfer, but we're saying to the Attorney: take them into account. Take into account the submission from the prisoner, and take into account the capacity for them to be safe in the prison system to which they're being transferred. We urge the Senate to support us in that, and I commend the amendments to the Senate. 12:46 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania As I've already indicated, we will not be supporting these amendments. I will go to the reasons why we don't believe these amendments are necessary. With regard to matters to be considered for transfer, before making a decision the Attorney-General already considers all of the circumstances of the case, including the factors in the International Transfer of Prisoners Statement of Policy, which is publicly available and a copy of which is provided to the prisoner when they are making their application. The factors outlined in the statement of policy are broad and currently include sentence enforcement; the extent to which the transfer would assist the prisoner's rehabilitation and reintegration; community safety; humanitarian considerations; dual citizenship; and relevant law enforcement and prosecutorial agency views. I note that the criteria that Senator Shoebridge would insert into the act do not include sentence enforcement—that is, the amendments would not require the Attorney-General to consider the very important question of whether transfer of a prisoner to another country would result in the appropriate enforcement of that prisoner's existing sentence. That is a very significant omission, as the difference between sentencing laws in different countries can sometimes have the consequence that transfer to another country results in a prisoner's effective sentence being dramatically shortened or, indeed, lengthened. Also, with regard to written reasons for decisions, all decisions by the Attorney-General are reviewable under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, and reasons for a decision may be obtained pursuant to section 13 of the act. The CHAIR 287062 Senator Shoebridge, I will get the opposition on record and then I will give you the call. 12:48 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia The coalition will not support these amendments, as we consider they are not necessary. We consider that these amendments will create administrative burden and create additional avenues for legal challenges on administrative grounds. This will create considerable work in addition to what is already a complex arrangement that takes a considerable amount of time and resources of multiple agencies and departments of both federal and state governments. The International Transfer of Prisoners Statement of Policy already outlines such considerations for the Attorney-General in their approval or refusal of a transfer. This amendment is also contrary to the intent of the amendments within the main bill, which is intended to reduce procedural overheads associated with the international prisoner transfer process. It is important to note that under the act a prisoner transfer can only occur where the Australian government, the foreign government and the prisoner all agree to the transfer. In all of the circumstances, we do not support this or other changes proposed by the Greens. 12:49 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Yes, this would provide additional legal protections for prisoners, and I've cited two high-profile cases where most of the public would think that is right. It's disappointing to see Labor joining with the coalition here to not provide those additional protections. But of all the reasons given to oppose this amendment, which articulates six specific matters that need to be considered—six additional, non-exhaustive matters that need to be considered—perhaps the most specious is that of the government: that it doesn't include the question of enforcement. For the government's benefit, I'll read from the first line of the amendments: 'Without limiting the matters that the Attorney-General may consider'. It's a non-exhaustive list and would in no way prevent the Attorney-General from considering enforcement. It may be a debating point in the Senate—some specious debating point in the Senate—but it has absolutely no merit as a reason for opposing this articulated list of six considerations that has the support of the Law Council. I commend the amendments to the house. The CHAIR 287062 The question before the committee is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2061 revised, moved together by Senator Shoebridge, be agreed to.  

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

 14 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 28 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Babet, R. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Farrell, D. E. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

12:58 Senator 169119 New South Wales SHOEBRIDGE () (): by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2039 together: (1) Schedule 9, item 4, page 25 (line 28), omit "limits, or would limit", substitute "significantly limits, or would significantly limit". (2) Schedule 9, item 4, page 26 (line 9), omit "may", substitute "must". (3) Schedule 9, item 4, page 26 (after line 10), after subsection 17B(3), insert: Regular reviews of suspension (3A) The Commissioner must regularly review a suspension that is in effect under this section for the purposes of determining whether the Commissioner is satisfied that paragraph (1)(a) or (b) no longer applies. These are matters that I sought to address in questions to the government earlier in the committee stage. These amendments do three important things to ensure that witness protection is afforded to vulnerable witnesses and not permanently or inappropriately suspended by a decision of the AFP commissioner or their delegate. The first amendment is about the threshold for suspension of protection and assistance. It's an amendment that was recommended by the Law Council of Australia, and it's one that had support in the Senate committee process. This amendment seeks to increase the threshold for the removal of witness protection to actions that 'significantly limit' rather than just 'limit' the commissioner's ability to provide protection and assistance. For the reasons that were articulated earlier in the committee process, we commend that. I also note that the report of the human rights committee inquiry into the bill directly proposes that as a potential amendment to be considered by the Senate. The second proposed amendment changes the situation in which a suspension is revoked. It's kind of a double negative—revoking the suspension means returning the protection to the witness. It changes the situation so that it's not that the commissioner 'may' revoke the suspension when the reasons for suspension no longer apply. Instead, it requires the commissioner to revoke the suspension. Again we articulated the reasons for that earlier in the committee process and we had rather unhelpful responses from the government about operational flexibility, notwithstanding that a witness's life and the life of their loved ones may be put at risk. The third amendment requires regular review of suspensions from witness protections to ensure that they remain appropriate. Again I note that the human rights committee and the Law Council encouraged the Senate to consider this as an amendment to ensure that witnesses are not on some effectively permanent suspension. While the government says, 'These are only suspensions,' the bill allows suspensions to be forever. Not requiring regular review of the suspensions, given it's often a life-and-death matter for the person under witness protection, we see as unprincipled. I commend the amendments to the house. 13:01 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I thank Senator Shoebridge. As I indicated in my second reading speech, the government will not be supporting these amendments. I'll go through our reasoning. In relation to your first amendment regarding the threshold, we believe that it's appropriate for protection and assistance to be suspended in circumstances where the AFP's ability to provide protection and assistance may be limited. This is because any limitation on the AFP's ability to provide protection and assistance could present a serious risk to both the participant and the AFP and could have serious consequences. In relation to your amendment that goes to revoking a suspension, new paragraph 17B(3)(a) provides that the duration of a suspension must be reasonable in all circumstances. This provides operational flexibility in determining the duration of the suspension and extending or revoking it as required. This allows for the commissioner or their delegate to take into account specific details of a participant's circumstances—for example, where it is unclear when a participant will return to circumstances that restore the AFP's ability to provide adequate protection and assistance. While a suspension is in place, protection and assistance can still be provided to the benefit of the participant if the commissioner is satisfied that in the circumstances it is necessary and appropriate to do so. In relation to your amendment regarding reviews, suspensions from the witness protection program are temporary in nature. The purpose of these measures is to ensure the rapid reinstatement of protection and assistance for a participant. In practice, the AFP would continue to consider the circumstances of each case to assess whether it is appropriate for the suspension to remain in force or whether it should be revoked and the protection and assistance reinstated. The proposal to provide a regular review of suspension misunderstands the temporary nature of suspensions. Under new subsection 17C(2) a participant who has had their protection and assistance suspended under new subsection 17B(1) is able to apply for a review of that decision if desired. While a suspension is in place, protection and assistance can still be provided to the benefit of the participant if the commissioner is satisfied that in the circumstances it is necessary and appropriate to do so. 13:04 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia The coalition will not support these amendments. We consider that these amendments go directly counter to the purpose of the legislation, which is to allow flexibility to suspend protection in appropriate circumstances. The arbitrary imposition of a requirement that the participant's actions would significantly limit the ability to provide protection, as opposed to just limiting the ability to provide protection, undermines the clarity of the provision and is unlikely to be effective. The proposed requirement to undertake regular reviews is also unnecessary. The intent of new section 17B, as made clear in the explanatory memorandum, is to allow suspension of protection only on a temporary basis. 13:05 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I note that the government's responses at this stage of the committee repeated the same unmeritorious non sequiturs that they gave when we presented them earlier, and just simply repeating the same unmeritorious arguments doesn't improve them. Failing to understand that so-called 'temporary suspensions' can be permanent and pretending that that isn't the case doesn't make them any less permanent. Suggesting that the often vulnerable witness can seek a review doesn't remove the kind of policy basis for the AFP itself to review the suspension. Suggesting that operational flexibility should trump the protection of witnesses doesn't make that a meritorious argument. Simply saying that you want to give the AFP the flexibility to not provide witness protection because it's operationally beneficial to the AFP doesn't make it a good argument. Saying it three times doesn't improve it. When it comes to the question of raising the threshold permitting the AFP to remove witness protections when there's been a marginal limitation on the ability of the AFP to provide the protection, simply saying that you opposed that three times doesn't make it good policy. We continue to press for those amendments. I note that Senator Thorpe is not present, and I note that my office has been asked to raise on her behalf that she was seeking some further amendments to provide for additional expressed considerations to consider a prisoner's rehabilitation and reintegration into the community, community safety and humanitarian concerns. They seem to be matters that would be entirely appropriate to include. I'm not in a position to move those amendments, because I don't have in a form to put before the committee, but I will just indicate for the record that they seem entirely appropriate additional matters to include in the bill, and they in large part would have been picked up by the amendments that we put in sheet 2061. The TEMPORARY CHAIR e68 Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. I am in possession of that amendment at the moment, so that's good. If there are no further questions, the question is that Greens amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2039, moved together by leave by Senator Shoebridge, be agreed to. Question negatived. 13:08 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I'm now in receipt of the amendment proposed by Senator Thorpe. Although I think we've moved beyond that, with your indulgence, I will just move it, to put it on the record. At the request of Senator Thorpe, I move amendment (1) on sheet 2095: (1) Schedule 6, page 20 (after line 11), after item 10, insert: 10A Section 52 Repeal the section, substitute: 52 Prisoner and prisoner's representative to be kept informed (1) The Attorney-General must arrange for a prisoner or prisoner's representative to be kept informed of the progress of: (a) any application made under section 16; or (b) any request made under section 24 or 33; for the transfer of prisoner. (2) If an adverse decision is made in respect of an application made under section 16 or a request made under section 24 or 33, the Attorney-General must provide the prisoner or prisoner's representative with a written statement of reasons: (a) setting out the factors taken into account by the decision-maker; and (b) informing the prisoner of their right to a review of the decision. I note that this amendment would do two key things when it comes to international prisoner transfer. The first is to require the Attorney-General to keep the prisoner or the prisoner's representative informed of the progress of an application made for international transfer, and that seems entirely appropriate. The manner in which that could be done obviously would be open to the Attorney, but having that process to keep the prisoner informed seems a meritorious amendment. The second is that, where an adverse decision is made in respect of an application, the Attorney-General would be required to provide the prisoner or their representative with a statement of reasons setting out the factors taken into account by the decision-maker and then informing the prisoner of the review of the decision. Again, providing that requirement to issue a written statement articulating the factors taken into account and advising of review rights seems a meritorious amendment. On behalf of the Greens, and noting that they were drafted and put before the house by Senator Thorpe, I move and support the amendment. 13:09 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. The government will be opposing the amendment put forward. Section 52 provides a general obligation to keep the prisoner updated about the progress of his or her application, and the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act already provides for reasons to be provided if a prisoner requests it. 13:10 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia The coalition will not support the amendments as proposed by Senator Thorpe on sheet 2095. The coalition considers that these amendments would add burdensome administrative overheads to the international transfer of prisoners process and expand the avenues for legal challenge. Question negatived. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Third Reading 31 13:11 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Export Control Amendment (Streamlining Administrative Processes) Bill 2022 31

Export Control Amendment (Streamlining Administrative Processes) Bill 2022

Second Reading 31 13:12 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I'm very pleased to rise to speak in relation to the Export Control Amendment (Streamlining Administrative Processes) Bill 2022. I think all senators in this place would note the importance of Australia's agriculture industry to our country's wellbeing. Anything we can do to boost that industry, to make it easier for our producers in the agriculture sector to export their wonderful products to the rest of the world, is a great thing and we should support it. In this context I should note that approximately 70 per cent of Australia's agricultural produce is exported. We need to ensure that these businesses, these producers, are adequately supported by fit-for-purpose systems operating as efficiently as possible. That is the intention underlying this bill and it's an intention which we on this side of the chamber fully support. From my perspective, it is important that we place on the record the achievements of the coalition government during previous terms of parliament. It was part of a drive to build our agriculture sector to achieve its goal of reaching $100 billion of farmgate output by 2030. That was the goal—$100 billion of farm output by 2030—and we are tracking reasonably well towards achieving that goal. It's important that all of us in the chamber do everything we can to stay the course to achieve that goal. During the time when the coalition government was in power, we saw $328.4 million in congestion-busting measures to slash red tape in the agriculture sector and $85.9 million, through the Agribusiness Expansion Initiative, to diversify markets. Most importantly, in my view, we now have in place trade agreements which cover approximately 80 per cent of Australia's markets. In 2013, trade agreements covered approximately 27 per cent of our markets, and that's been increased, as a result of the efforts of trade ministers under the coalition government, to nearly 80 per cent of our export markets. That's a wonderful achievement. I note the government is progressing a number of trade discussions as well, and that's something which should attract the support of all members sitting in this chamber, because that's a good thing. It is a good thing for Australia's agricultural products to be exported to the world. It's a good thing for our rural and regional communities, but it's also a good thing for the customers of those products, the people who buy and rely upon those products all over the world. The last point I would like to draw attention to in my brief contribution in this debate is the budget cuts that were made by the Labor government in its October 2022 budget, which were extraordinarily disappointing because, as I said, we need to support our agricultural producers in their efforts to export more of their product overseas. In that policy context, why would you take the axe to the Regional Accelerator Program, which was introduced by the coalition government? Why would you take the axe to a program that is meant to support current small and medium-sized businesses to get into the export market and contribute to the goal of $100 billion by 2030 which we've set our sights on? Why take the axe to a program to support those potential exporters? On the contrary, we should be supporting exporters, especially those in the small to medium-sized cohort, to take advantage of the opportunities that are there for them. They just need some assistance to seize those opportunities, and that will assist us in reaching that $100 billion target by 2030. So from my perspective—and, I'm sure, from the perspective of others on this side of the chamber—we fully support this bill, but we also call upon the government to reconsider its slashing of the Regional Accelerator Program and to provide support, especially to small and medium-sized businesses, to achieve their dreams and realise their potential in the best interests of the Australian people and the Australian economy. 13:17 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria by leave—I rise to continue my remarks on the Export Control Amendment (Streamlining Administrative Processes) Bill 2022. In government we made it easier for businesses to navigate export systems and get product overseas, and we are immensely proud of our track record. Those achievements include delivering $328.4 million in congestion-busting measures to slash red tape and get products to export markets faster, and providing $85.9 million through our Agribusiness Expansion Initiative to diversify markets. In its first year, the initiative led to $418.9 million worth of export sales—great news for our ag industry. We finalised 11 trade agreements and lifted the share of trade covered by these agreements from 27 per cent under Labor in 2013 to almost 80 per cent with the inclusion of the UK and Indian trade deals. We actively supported our exporters through the pandemic, through the International Freight Assistance Mechanism. This program supported more than 25,000 flights to 58 international destinations, carrying more than 399,000 tonnes of exports, worth more than $4.7 billion. That's a lot of numbers, but what it actually means is well-paid jobs right across this country, not just in our capital cities doing the manufacturing but also producing out in the regions. This program alone saved over 150,000 jobs in this country during COVID. We launched the Trade Information Service to provide a single source of online information on how to export, including regulatory and border requirements. This initiative will save export businesses some 1,370 hours on average. We also appointed a Special Representative for Australian Agriculture, which has advanced our interests overseas. It's worth recognising that in our last budget the federal coalition also committed an additional $100 million as part of our Regional Accelerator Program to go towards the Export Market Development Grant program, which would have helped our small- and medium-sized exporters in rural Australia to promote their goods in new markets. In their October 2022 budget, this Labor government abolished the Regional Accelerator Program, and with it that $100 million exporter grant program, as part of their $10 billion cuts to rural, regional and remote Australia. The Regional Accelerator Program was intended to assist the regions to manage the transition to net zero, but it's exactly the thing this government has actually cut from those communities who will feel the challenges that a transition will bring and who might have had the opportunity to seize some of those opportunities. Has this government given any thought to those communities that are going to be left with the burden of the transition to net zero? It's not going to be in Kooyong. It's not going to be in the middle of Sydney. It's going to be in rural and regional communities where that burden will be borne. Labor considered the Regional Accelerator Program rorts and waste. What a joke. I am talking about communities like Gladstone. I'm talking about communities like Dubbo, like Geraldton and like Alice Springs. They are the communities that this government thought weren't worthy of additional funds to assist in the transition into net zero. It's quite incredible. They're speaking out of both sides of their mouth. This Labor government has no vision for regional Australia, nor does it have the interests of regional Australia at heart. To conclude my remarks: the federal coalition will always work constructively with the government of the day to support practical measures that will help strengthen our agricultural export sector. As a result of the work of the many dedicated public servants in the department of agriculture, who I've had the great honour and privilege to work with in my time in this place, the provisions outlined in this particular bill deliver on that front. Therefore, we're pleased to commend it to the chamber. 13:22 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales This Labor government has not always been best of friends with, or supportive of, Australia's agricultural interests or our regional interests. Indeed, we've seen cuts to regional infrastructure. We've had very little progress on allowing seasonal workers to assist our horticulture industries in getting fruits picked and to market. We've seen the butchering of the distribution priority area classification system to get overseas trained doctors into our regions, where they are needed so desperately. And, time and time again, we've been about to see the introduction of Murray-Darling Basin legislation that could absolutely rip out the economic viability of our regions. So, it is good to finally see a piece of legislation come before us that will actually benefit our regions, and that is what we are seeing with this legislation. Living in southern New South Wales, as I do, I know how important agriculture is. Agriculture makes up over 70 per cent of our export industries. I know the critical importance of getting access to and servicing our overseas markets for our agricultural industries: our cereal crops, our red meat industries and, importantly, rice—our wonderful, water-efficient rice industry, which feeds around 50 million people a year. The original Export Control Act 2020 provides the regulatory framework for the export of goods, including a range of agricultural commodities, some of which I've just spoken about. This amendment will enable more effective communications and administrative processes. We on this side of the chamber will always support reducing red tape. It is suggested that this bill will help cut red tape markedly. Of course we support that. One area of great importance to the elusive red-tape-cutting goal is the collection and sharing of information. Rapid approval might be critical because we have a grain shipment on a foreign market wharf awaiting quarantine clearance or we have other perishable products that need clearance. We often need to share this information on international markets, and sometimes it is the difference between winning a market and having a market closed to us. It's often a case of 'who dares wins': who gets there first and who has the right information when they get there becomes the preferred customer. Australia hast high-quality produce, high-quality products, and we want to be the preferred customer. Currently all information obtained or generated by people performing their duty or exercising their powers under this act are classified as protected, regardless of whether the information is commercially sensitive or not. This means that when information needs to be shared it has to go through a very slow and complex approval process. I'm advised that the provisions included in this bill will make that approval process more timely, more responsive and therefore more efficient, delivering less red tape. Also, importantly, there are offence provisions in this bill that would be applied if protected information is disclosed in an unauthorised way. Red tape reduction is often promised, but often there is a failure to deliver. I hope that in this instance the shortcuts, the smarter approval processes and the work, mean that business is given a faster road map to the markets. In speaking on this bill I think it is very important to remember the valuable work the previous coalition government delivered in this area. The Liberals and Nationals, in government and now in opposition, know and respect the important place that agriculture plays in our economy, and that includes valuable industries like coal, gas and timber—all evil in the eyes of my colleagues on the Greens benches, the green dreamers who would appear to have no understanding of where the strength of the Australian economy lies or from where and from what industries our prosperous Australian lifestyle comes. When in government, the Liberals and Nationals saw the importance of helping Australia's agricultural sector to strive for its ambitious goal of a $100 billion farm gate output by 2030. We provided $328 million to get export products to market faster, and this bill will add to that work. Our agribusiness expansion initiative provided grants for market expansion. We had an increased presence in target markets. We worked hard to improve technical market access. And we assisted more than 2,000 agrifood exporters each year. Importantly, we also facilitated finding new markets for our commodities that were horribly impacted by China's trade barriers. We invested $72.7 million to help Australian farming, forestry and fisheries exporters to expand and diversify their export markets in 2021 as part of our agribusiness expansion initiative. We matched grants for government and industry associations to work together on growing markets, and we provided additional technical expertise to open and expand markets. We produced dairy products for export that are renowned for quality. Our cereals are highly sought after, and our meat is second to none. Even when China put tariffs on barley we were able to find other markets, because our product is so widely respected. We know, unlike so many of those on the other side of this place and some on the crossbenches, that Australia produces the best food and fibre in the world, and we grow enough food to feed more than 75 million people every year—across staples, niche products, and value-add and high-value products, like almonds; we produce it across the board. We know—and the Nationals remember—that every piece of legislation we debate in this place we consider with that lens: is it good for our industries? Is it good for our people? Is it good for our regions? Labor, on the other hand, showed its respect for agriculture by slashing the Regional Accelerator Program in their first budget. It was a program that was designed to help small and medium-sized exporters in rural Australia promote their goods in new markets. It was another— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Order! Sorry, Senator Davey, it being 1.30, we have a hard marker. I shall now proceed to two-minute statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 33 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Artsakh 33 13:30 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales Artsakh has been under attack and under a blockade by Azerbaijan for over 250 days now. There are 120,000 Armenians trapped there, often without access to electricity or medical and food supplies. There's only one road which leads between Artsakh and the rest of the world. It is known as the Lachin Corridor, and the local Armenians call it 'the road of life'. This road is being blockaded by Azerbaijan, and there has been an illegal military checkpoint established there, which violates the agreement between Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russia since 2020. Amnesty, the International Court of Justice and a series of genocide scholars have called this out for what it is—a potential attempt to repeat an Armenian genocide. This has caused great angst inside the Armenian community in Australia and in New South Wales, in particular. I have met with many members of that community who have enormous concerns about a second genocide. Many of our key allies, including the US, Canada, Germany and the EU, have already called on Azerbaijan to end this blockade. We, Australia, are yet to do that. The shadow minister for foreign affairs, Senator Birmingham, has said that the coalition's position is that we are very concerned about the humanitarian impact, and we've called on Azerbaijan to open the Lachin Corridor. We are urging the government to join now with Australia's international allies, friends and partners and put more pressure on Azerbaijan to open the corridor and let the people of Armenia free, as they should be. Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 34 13:32 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Last week was a momentous occasion across Australia when we saw the Prime Minister announce the date for the referendum. This referendum to recognise Australia's First Nations people in our Constitution through a Voice is something that we should all get behind. For years and years Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have been calling for exactly this—a voice, a recognition in our Constitution for their 65,000 years of culture and tradition, their love of the land and their care of our country. Yet what we are seeing quite significantly is misinformation being touted around the country to coerce people to say no. If people want to say no on the basis of the actual facts that's one thing, but to be pushed to it by misinformation is unconscionable, and people should feel deeply ashamed of that. And it's not just that. We then see the member for Dickson and Leader of the Opposition saying he wants to hold another referendum to recognise First Nations people in the Constitution—recognise them but not listen to them. If you say no to the idea of a referendum that has recognition in the Constitution and a Voice and then elect him as the Prime Minister, he'll hold another referendum to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Constitution and give them no voice. It is a joke, a complete joke. Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 34 13:34 Senator I0U South Australia HANSON-YOUNG () (): Last night the 'yes' campaign released their uplifting and powerful ad, celebrating Indigenous achievement and excellence. The ad compares and captures the landmark moments of progress as a united, intelligent, empathetic, modern Australia: when we voted yes in the 1967 referendum; when we cheered yes for Cathy Freeman at the Sydney Olympics; when the High Court said yes to Eddie Mabo; when we said yes, we are sorry, to the stolen generations. These were uniting moments and ones that we are proud of as a nation. But what do we have from the side opposite? What does Peter Dutton appeal to? Does he really appeal to the best of us? He says, 'If you don't know, vote no.' He is appealing to ignorance and to fear. He speaks of division and he talks down to the Australian people. And, rather than debating the merits, he platforms mistruths, lies and conspiracy theories. This isn't just post-truth; this is pre-enlightenment. Where would Peter Dutton have been in these key moments? Would he have voted yes in the 1967 referendum? No. Would he have cheered for Cathy Freeman? Probably not. Did he support the apology? No, he didn't. Did he stand with Eddie Mabo? No, he didn't. I wonder where he would have been when people were campaigning to give women the right to vote. Let's face it, he would have been on the wrong side of that one, too. Every time Australia has moved forward, Peter Dutton has said 'no'. He has been on the wrong side every single time. (Time expired) Australian Society 34 13:36 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia Buzzwords are a safe haven for the left's weak of mind. You know the words I'm talking about—words like 'microaggressions' and 'social constructs'. If I hear another person use the term 'lived experience', I think I'm going to lose it. What does it even mean? The use of such language in day-to-day life is an all-too-common experience. Phrases like 'lived experience' are like a secret handshake to enter an exclusive club of pseudointellectuals who use the terms to virtue signal the fact that they believe they are the self-appointed champions of social justice. Let's not forget the other contenders for overused buzzwords like 'systemic racism', 'white privilege', 'cultural appropriation', 'truth-telling' and the unholy trinity of 'diversity', 'equity' and 'inclusion'. My lived experience as a cisgender, heteronormative white male means I'm probably guilty of mansplaining; and those opposite will likely dismiss this speech as being a result of my unconscious bias and white male privilege. However, language shapes our thoughts, our speech, our writing and our social interactions. If you can control language, you can control the discourse. Anyone who's endured a work meeting or a local council meeting or who's interacted with the bureaucracy has likely experienced the pain of being subjected to this linguistic fairy floss. You are, to use another of their favourite terms, being gaslit. Understand this guilt-tripping tactic and resist the temptation to use their language next time you're in a team meeting or trying to impress your manager. Who knows, your manager's lived experience might mean that they secretly agree with me and hate it too. International Relations 35 13:38 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I've spoken many times in this chamber and I'm privileged to be the Chair of the Parliamentary Friendship Group of Lithuania. In that capacity I've engaged with Lithuania's ambassador to Australia, His Excellency Darius Degutis, and members of the Lithuanian diaspora here in Australia. Stability within Eastern Europe, particularly in the context of Russia's illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine, is of paramount importance. It's crucial that Australia remains a close friend of strong democratic nations such as Lithuania and that we engage meaningfully in ongoing dialogue on matters of security and economic stability. This past fortnight I undertook, at personal expense, travel overseas for the purpose of expanding my engagement with and understanding of the many issues on which I seek to advocate in this parliament. Assisted by Ambassador Degutis, I was able to spend time in Lithuania's capital city, Vilnius, and met with Lithuania's Speaker, First Deputy Speaker and Minister of Foreign Affairs, in addition to members of the Lithuanian interparliamentary relations group. These parliamentarians generously donated their time to meet with me and their insights were deeply enriching. I was also grateful to meet with Ambassador Lloyd Brodrick, who is Australia's ambassador to Poland, the Czech Republic and Lithuania. His engagement and insights greatly enhanced my understanding of current circumstances and challenges within the region, and I'd like to thank him for his time. Australia must remain steadfast in our support of Ukraine in the wake of Russia's reprehensible and illegal contact within the region. That includes ensuring that our relationship with those nations most closely impacted remains strong and that Australia can be considered a trusted friend and supporter of democracy on the international stage. My engagements throughout the course of my time in Lithuania have reinforced the crucial work that we do in this parliament and the immense value of the genuine engagement with other nations that occurs through forums such as parliamentary friendship groups. In that spirit, I personally thank the ambassador to Lithuania for his assistance in organising my engagements and for his ongoing engagement with the Lithuanian Parliamentary Friendship Group. Environment 35 13:40 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the many different people that make up our Queensland community, three weeks ago I travelled the Atherton Tablelands, known locally as the Garden of Eden. The area is amongst the world's most productive farmland. Original native forest and vegetation still cover much of the tablelands—until now. Now, foreign predatory, parasitic corporations are replacing our natural environment with an industrial landscape of wind turbines. Thousands of hectares are being cleared to make way for 86 wind turbines in the foreign-owned Chalumbin industrial wind development. At 250 metres tall, these towers will have the third-longest blades in the world. Installing these parasitic misinvestments involves literally grinding the tops off mountains to create the large, flat area needed for the base of these monsters, plus access roads and easements to get the power back to where it is needed. This is industrial-level environmental vandalism. Already, the nearby foreign-owned Kaban development has created scars across the tops of mountains, destroying habitat for native flora and fauna. Kaban has disturbed arsenic naturally in local rock formations. We simply don't know what effect this will have on native wildlife in the years ahead. The Woodleigh Swamp is an important wetland. Thousands of swans and brolgas normally rest here each year. Locals say that since Kaban opened, only a few kilometres away, the swamp has been almost deserted. Kaban and Chalumbin environmental impact statements make no mention of the catastrophic effects these installations have on uplift capacity for migratory and soaring birds, nor abandonment of natural upland habitat, despite a wealth of papers proving the link. The Australian Conservation Foundation are calling for an end to wind turbines being located in virgin bushland. That should be the consensus. The Atherton Tablelands community I listen to have asked me to relay a message to Minister Plibersek: end the environmental vandalism now! Albanese Government 35 13:42 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland The Prime Minister is out of touch. Since the Prime Minister announced the referendum date last Wednesday, he has toured around Australia desperately trying to sell his divisive Canberra Voice. While the Prime Minister and the 'yes' campaign are jetting around on their free Qantas flights with Alan Joyce, what the Prime Minister is not talking about are the issues that really matter to Australians. The Prime Minister is not talking about the cost of fuel and groceries. He is not talking about the spiralling cost of housing and rental prices. He is not talking about how unemployment is beginning to tick up across the country. He is certainly not talking about the ridiculous cost of Qantas's air flights. He is not talking about energy prices skyrocketing, hurting our families and small businesses. And today there are hundreds of pharmacists on the lawn of Parliament House at this very moment campaigning against this government's plan to cut pharmacies off at the knees by rushing through 60-day dispensing. He is not talking about them and he is not talking to them. But here is the difference: the coalition is actually talking about what matters to Australians. Though the government may be pressing the pause button on all legislation coming out of the ministerial wing of this building, there is no pause button on the hurt and the struggle that Australians are facing in this cost-of-living crisis. The Australian families sitting around the dinner tables struggling to make ends meet do not want a government that tells them they are racist if they don't support the Voice. They want a government that will fight the cost-of-living crisis, that will fight the housing crisis and that will fight the energy crisis head-on, and get our country back on track. That is the difference between the coalition and Labor: the coalition will fight on the issues that actually matter to Australians, whereas the Labor Party will fight only for issues that matter to the Labor Party. Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 36 13:44 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise to promote the importance of voting in support of the Voice on 14 October. It is essential for our nation to come together, and I'm very proud to be part of a government that wants to unite the country and to right the wrongs of the past. There is nothing more important than having your name on your birth certificate, and that is the case for our First Nations people. We know that decade after decade—and the majority of that, I might add, was under those on that side when they have been in government—we have failed the First Nations people of this country. They have failed them. This is an important time in our nation's history as we continue the journey of reconciliation. History is approaching on 14 October, and supporting the Voice to Parliament should be a proud moment for all of us as we honour and recognise Indigenous Australians. Last Thursday the Prime Minister—yes, he was moving around the country—got a wonderfully warm and supportive welcome when he came to Launceston. As the Prime Minister and I walked around the streets of Launceston we were inundated with people thanking him for showing this leadership because they want to see our country come together. They want to see real change. They are sick of reading the terrible health statistics of Australia's First Nations people. They are sick and tired of hearing about First Nations children who don't have the same opportunities with their education as the rest of the Australian population. They are sick and tired of hearing the terrible, sad effects of those who end up incarceration or those who take their life. We have failed the First People of this country, but on 14 October we can take a step and be part of history. There is nothing to fear from bringing the country together and giving all Australians the opportunity that we all deserve. Tasmania: Environment 36 13:46 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I'd like to do a quick shoutout in the Australian Senate for all those peaceful protesters who are heading to Tarkine's ancient rainforests this week. They're heading to the rainforest this week because next week, on 13 September, our Minister for the Environment minister Tanya Plibersek is due to hand down a decision about the expansion of a toxic tailings dam in the Tarkine rainforests. The tailings dam is being proposed by a Chinese government owned company, MMG Mining. They have other options, yet they seem to be insisting on going into these beautiful Gondwana rainforests, some of the most carbon-rich biodiverse rainforests on the planet. It's an absolutely enchanting place. I want to say thank you to those protesters. I and two of my colleagues, Senator Rice and Senator McKim, have been in there a number of times. We were there when the protests were occurring. Hundreds of people were arrested a couple of years ago, and it turned out that the company was clearing the land illegally—the Tasmanian government had given the go-ahead illegally—and that was stopped. I know the environment minister has approved four coal mine since she was appointed environment minister under this government, which has disappointed a lot of people. They are probably fearing the worst, but I would urge the environment minister, Minister Plibersek, to do her job and be the minister for the environment. Protect these beautiful Gondwana rainforests, which are some of the oldest forests left on the planet. They are so special. We need to do everything we can to protect them for future generations, and we need to remember that they are our first line of defence on climate change through the way they sequester carbon. I want also to say that the protesters, the people that have been out there, the Bob Brown Foundation—a whole range of people—do a great job under very difficult circumstances. I know it is not easy when you're being pursued by the federal and state governments, but stick at it, guys. I know the minister will make the right decision next week and kill this project. Government and Society 36 13:48 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria I've got a confession to make. Listen up. I'm a country music fan, that's what I am, and I have been for a long time. How about that? I know it might come as a shock to some people watching at home that a guy in a three-piece suit, from Melbourne, loves country music. You know what? I am full of surprises. How about that one? Over the last month, we've seen the rise to fame of Oliver Anthony, an easygoing man who lives in a trailer that he purchased off Craigslist for $750. Until recently, Oliver recorded his music on a mobile phone. Oliver's song 'Rich Men North of Richmond' has debuted at No. 1 on the Billboard charts. He is the first artist ever to debut at No. 1, so congratulations to him. His song takes the thoughts inside the head of the average person and turns them into a pretty darned good melody, if I say so myself. It reveals the many frustrations of the working class and just how out of touch and corrupted the political class has become. We have our own rich men north of Richmond, but they are right here in our nation's capital. Do you know what? They sold their souls to the globalists and the corporate donors a very long time ago. I come from the outside world—that's where I come from—and do you know what I feel like sometimes? I feel like I'm an illegal alien in this place. Now, to all the old souls out there, we can and we must reject the new world. It begins with saying no, just saying no. The truth when spoken out loud is powerful. Oliver's instant success proved this. To the people at home: remember, courage is contagious and it begins with you. Western Australia: Regional Communities 37 13:50 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I had the privilege this last week of attending two regional shows in Western Australia. Probably the biggest regional show in WA, the Dowerin Field Days, took place this month. There was a wonderful turnout there, and another amazing event. And on Saturday I was privileged to attend the York Show. It was a smaller affair but one that is very important to that regional community. It's worth reflecting, though, as we're thinking about Western Australian electorates, just how big they really are. York to Dowerin is about 1½ hours drive, yet they're both in the electorate of Durack, which is held currently by my good friend Melissa Price. And if you drive 3,000 kilometres north you're still in Durack, in the town of Kununurra—3,000 kilometres north. If you drive seven hours south-east, you're in the electorate of my other good friend, the member for O'Connor, Rick Wilson. These are the two electorates in which the vast majority of live sheep exports from my home state of WA depart this country, largely to the Middle East. At those two shows I heard loud and clear from members of both those communities just how important the export sheep industry is for Western Australia. Another issue that came up was the cost of living, a big issue in the bush. The price of petrol and diesel in the regions is well in excess of $2 a litre these days. And we also heard about the Voice; loud and clear that it was a resounding no. I thank both of those communities for having us in their towns, and I look forward to being back next year. Aged Care 37 13:52 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania A cup of tea made exactly the way you like it, your favourite song playing in the background and a friendly face singing along with you: these little things make all the difference to residents in our aged-care homes, and it's about the workers who go above and beyond to put some sunshine in the residents' day. Tuesday 5 September is Thank You for Working in Aged Care Day, and I want to be clear that when I talk about workers in aged care I'm talking about the carers and the nurses, and also the cooks, cleaners, receptionists, allied health professionals and anybody else who helps aged-care facilities tick along. So I'm standing here to say thanks, and I know it's not enough just to say thank you—it's a really tough gig, but I also know it can be so rewarding. My partner, Tim, comes home with some of the funniest, sweetest stories about his time with his residents. He puts so much time and energy into making sure people aren't just looked after physically but also mentally. I know he's not the only one. There's a lot that the parliament needs to do to say thank you to aged-care workers. There are many recommendations from the royal commission into aged care that still haven't been put into place and we need to start having hard conversations about how we pay for aged care but still provide quality of life for residents. No matter the conversation, when it comes to aged care it always comes back to the workers: you are the heart of it all. Thank you for what you do. I know it might not feel like it at times, but know that you are seen and you are valued. You turn up every day and make a difference in the lives of older Australians. Your contribution means more to them and their families than you will ever, ever know. On a second note I'd like to give a shout out to Private Annabel Grounds. I apologise in advance for the week you're going to have with me! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 I'm not sure if that's good or bad! Education: Funding 37 13:54 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland NAPLAN results have been another stark reminder of the destruction of our public education system. Everyone is looking for a teacher, student or pedagogy to blame to explain why student performance continues to fall. But the answer is as clear as day: by consistently underfunding them we have set up our public schools to fail. We can't force all public schools in this country to subsist on scraps, then act surprised when they struggle. There is only one thing that will fix this: money. Right now, 98 per cent of our public schools are underfunded, while almost every private school is overfunded. Public education is the bedrock of a strong democracy. It's about laying a foundation that means all kids are afforded the same opportunities. But right now we have one of the most segregated and inequitable school systems in the OECD. It would take just $6.6 billion a year to ensure that all public schools in this country are funded to the absolute minimum requirement. Right now we have the opportunity to set right a decade of underfunding and gutting. We can plug the gap so that a kid starting school next term will get to go to a properly funded public school—a school where teachers are paid properly and have the time to attend to the needs of their students, and where parents don't have to pay out of pocket, during a cost-of-living crisis, to cover basics like pens, notebooks and laptops. The next National School Reform Agreement must put public money back into public schools and stop the decades-long rort of subsidising elite private schools with public money. Taxation 38 13:56 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I rise today to speak to the issue of transfer pricing in Australia, in particular transfer pricing of profits sent offshore. I thought I'd go through a bunch of companies that I don't particularly like—Google, Meta, Pfizer—and look at how much they transfer offshore in comparison with their worldwide accounts, and I picked on one of my favourite companies, Pfizer. Their Australian entity earned $1.36 billion in sales, yet they made an operating profit of only $90 billion, which works out to be a ratio of about 6.6 per cent. In other words, they transferred 94 per cent of their profits offshore. I then compared that with their worldwide accounts. They had $100 billion in revenue and made an operating profit of just under $35 billion. What that means is that their operating profit ratio worldwide was 34 per cent. The question we need to ask ourselves is: why is Pfizer making an operating profit worldwide of 34 per cent but an operating profit in Australia of only six per cent? Of course, all multinationals love to shift their profits offshore, because in Australia we have an onshore tax rate of 30c in the dollar and an offshore tax rate, depending on tax treaties, of between zero and 15c. If they can transfer their profits to lower-taxing jurisdictions, say the Netherlands or Ireland, they will pay much less tax. After I had a look at these differences in ratios, I turned to the back of their financial statements to look at related party transactions. Who should their two biggest payments in related party transactions have been paid to? None other than Pfizer Ireland and Pfizer Netherlands. I call on the Australian Treasurer to lift the rate of withholding tax on profits sent offshore, because we need to retain our earnings here in Australia. Workplace Relations 38 13:58 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland It can't come soon enough: that was the message from Central Queensland coalminers Simon and Ron. Over three years, Simon and Ron have been standing side by side in calling for urgent action on closing the labour hire loophole. They work at the same mine a few hundred kays from Rockhampton. Simon is a permanent worker and Ron is a labour hire worker. Despite his decades of experience, Ron doesn't get the same pay or conditions that Simon gets. The difference? Well, that's money not going into Ron's pocket and not being spent in local businesses in regional Queensland. Sadly, Ron's experience is not unusual, especially in regional Queensland. Thousands of workers have been impacted by the same legal loophole that means they can work at the same place, do the same tasks and be on the same roster yet receive substantially less in wages. They even have to work on Christmas Day without the same penalties. Imagine for a moment what it would feel like to be one of the thousands of workers like Ron across Australia. That's why the Albanese Labor government is taking action to close this loophole by introducing legislation today. Closing these loopholes can't come soon enough for workers like Ron and Simon and the regional community that they call home. Now, we know that mining executives will fight these reforms tooth and nail, because, despite BHP being responsible for the country's biggest wage theft scandal, they continue to exploit this labour-hire loophole. But what will the so-called 'battlers from the bush' from the LNP in Queensland do when presented with an opportunity to stand up for mining workers in regional Queensland? They will do what they have done time and time again— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 The time for statements has now expired. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 39 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program 39 14:00 The PRESIDENT 112096 Before we go to question time, I will draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the gallery of the 2023 Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program exchange participants. I know some of them will be in senators' offices. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to the Senate. Honourable senators: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 39 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Aviation Industry 39 14:00 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Yesterday the Queensland Labor government's Acting Premier stated that, if the decision to approve or reject Qatar Airways' application for additional international flights had been up to the Queensland government, they would have been approved. They went on to say 'arriving passengers deliver economic activity here, and that creates jobs and prosperity' and that the capacity would create supply, which drives prices down. Yesterday the South Australian Labor government also said that more flights and more international airlines drive down prices and encourage more international visitors. At the end of last week, the federal President of the Labor Party, Wayne Swan, urged the Albanese Labor government to reconsider the Qatar Airways decision, saying: An appropriate review where things are, given all these revelations, would be good. Will the Prime Minister listen to the criticisms from the Queensland and South Australian Labor governments and follow the calls of Mr Swan by committing to undertake a review of his government's decision on this matter? 14:01 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you to Senator Birmingham for the question. If I may, I also welcome the members of the ADF here to parliament; I trust this will be interesting for you! We thank you, as always as one, for your service to our country. I would make a few comments in response and in answer to senator Birmingham's question. The first point I would make is that, obviously, requests for additional capacity are made routinely by governments around the world, including Australia, and these requests aren't always granted. In the case of the Qatar Civil Aviation Authority's request, Minister King determined it was not in Australia's national interest to grant their request. I would make the point that this is not the first time this happened. The previous government made the same decision about Qatar. Qatar's growth in Australia obviously has not happened as quickly as its authorities want, nor in such big leaps, and we recognise that some businesses and airlines would like to see Minister King make a different decision. But, as those opposite might recall, governments don't have the luxury of focusing on vested interests. We have to focus on the national interest, and the Australian government will support recovery and sustainable growth in the aviation sector. Senator WONG 00AOU I would also make the point, because I am asked about Premier Malinauskas, that Premier Malinauskas was not reflecting on this decision. The Premier knows that Qatar can fly unlimited flights into Adelaide directly. We know that the Premier has been working hard to increase— An opposition senator interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU Was that a negative comment about Adelaide? I thought we might have had some bipartisanship on something. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, a supplementary question? 14:03 Senator H6X South Australia BIRMINGHAM (—) (): On Sunday, when discussing the launch of new flights by Cathay Pacific and Singapore Airlines, the transport minister said: Increased capacity and new entrants to the Australian market will help lower prices. Does the government agree that increased capacity helps to lower prices? If this applies to Cathay Pacific and Singapore, why does it not to apply to Qatar Airways on its routes? What is the rationale for the national interest decision being made? 14:04 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia It is important that Australians can access international travel and tourists can visit our shores. That's why we have an air services agreement with more than 100 countries, and that's why capacity is going up. As you yourself said, Senator Birmingham, Cathay Pacific, China Southern and Singapore Airlines have announced more flights. I again remind those opposite—and I'm surprised Senator Birmingham doesn't get on the same ticket as me and start to argue for more flights by Qatar in and out of Adelaide—Qatar has no capacity constraints when flying to our secondary gateways. They could fly larger planes into our primary gateways if they chose to. Senator Birmingham mentions Qantas. I agree with him, and I agree with Peter Malinauskas. We would urge Qantas to reinstate international flights to and from Adelaide—something the Labor state government has been advocating. And I join with the state government in saying that we'd like to see more Qantas flights in and out of Adelaide. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, a second supplementary? 14:05 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Minister, in the lead-up to the last election the Prime Minister claimed: … when I make a mistake, I'll fess up to it, and I'll set about correcting that mistake. I won't blame someone else, I'll accept responsibility. That's what leaders do. In light of the intense criticism from the tourism industry, the endless inconsistencies in Minister King's public statements, the views of the Queensland Labor government and the statement of federal Labor President Wayne Swan, why won't the Prime Minister take responsibility for his government's mistake in the handling of the Qatar Airways application and set about correcting it? 14:06 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Let's remember the record of those opposite. They gave billions of taxpayer dollars to Qantas for nothing in return. They stood by as Virgin collapsed into administration, watched while it was snatched up by foreign private equity. They oversaw mass outsourcing of jobs and labour hire, driving down wages and conditions across the sector. They cut JobKeeper from dnata workers and left their families in the lurch. And when in government they made the same decision about Qatar. These are the people who are now playing a lot of politics for some vested interest that they are happy to argue for about this decision. Frankly, we're not going to take lectures from you when it comes to the aviation sector. We know the history of the coalition when it comes to aviation. I again would say that Qatar faces no restrictions in increasing its secondary gateway traffic. (Time expired) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 40 14:07 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. I was pleased to see last week in Adelaide the Prime Minister announce that a referendum on a Voice to Parliament will be held on 14 October. Can the minister please explain to the Senate how the Voice is an opportunity to bring Australians together and help achieve progress for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians? 14:07 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank Senator Stewart for that question. I thank her for her work and her advocacy. And we were all very proud to be there with Senator Stewart, Senator McCarthy and so many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders. It was a very uplifting moment. As the senator says, the Prime Minister announced that on 14 October all Australians will have the opportunity to come together and vote for constitutional recognition through a Voice, and this is an issue that should be above politics—an opportunity to come together to bring about a better future for our country. I want to acknowledge my predecessor, Julie Bishop, who joined me in Perth last week to talk with people about the Voice. I'll quote what she said: … for 20 years, I've seen us try all sorts of things, telling Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, 'this will work' and it doesn't. So, I think it makes sense to say to the people whose lives have been impacted, what are the problems and how do we fix them? Later in the week I was joined in Adelaide by Natasha Stott Despoja, Kate Carnell and Sean Gordon from the Liberals for Yes campaign in campaigning for the yes vote. In Melbourne, Mr Shorten was joined by Mr Bandt, and in Sydney, Ms Plibersek was joined by Mr Turnbull, and they campaigned together, because for some people this is above politics, and these community leaders all recognise that this is an opportunity to bring Australians from all walks of life together. And Australians are coming together across the country in sporting clubs and community groups. One Australian I would particularly acknowledge is John Farnham AO, who for the first time has given the rights to 'You're the Voice', one of our unofficial anthems, to the yes campaign. The words of this song are about coming together, listening to each other and choosing a better future. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, a first supplementary? 14:10 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Thank you, Minister, for that response. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Please resume your seat. I will wait for silence. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Brown! Senator Stewart, please continue. Senator STEWART 299352 I thank the minister for that response. Could the minister outline how this year's referendum is a chance to make a practical difference to the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians? 14:10 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia (—) (): The Voice will offer ideas and advice so governments make better decisions to address the challenges facing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It will be an advisory committee made up of representatives from across the country and it will not have power to make or veto government decisions. What it will do is improve outcomes in Indigenous health, housing, education and employment, because, as we all know, for too long governments with good intentions have spent billions trying to deal with these issues but we have not achieved lasting improvement because we have not listened sufficiently to the people on the ground. The current approach is broken, and the Voice is our best chance of fix this. The overwhelming majority of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people support the Voice. As I said, the words of the song are about people coming together, listening to each other and choosing a better future, and that is exactly the choice Australians have on 14 October. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, a second supplementary? 14:11 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria It's a shame those opposite laugh at the idea of bringing people together. With the referendum question and date settled, following years and decades of advocacy by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, why is it important for Australians to take this opportunity to recognise our first peoples in the Constitution? 14:12 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Recognition through a voice is what Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have asked for. We know that because so many Indigenous representatives met at Uluru and released the Uluru Statement from the Heart. What is interesting— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Order on my left! Please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU What was interesting over the weekend was we saw Mr Dutton say he doesn't want one referendum; he wants two—not one but two. According to Mr Dutton, it is a bad idea to ask all Australians to turn up and vote in one referendum but it is a good idea to ask them to turn up and vote in a second referendum and he supports a voice, apparently, just not this voice. So one referendum bad, two referendum is good according to the coalition and its leader, and a voice is okay but not this voice. We know Mr Dutton is playing political games because when he had the chance to do something, he didn't, and now when someone else is trying to do something he tries to tear it down. He builds himself up by tearing others down. (Time expired) Aviation Industry 41 14:13 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria My question is of the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. In just seven weeks, the government ministers have given seven different excuses for Minister King's decision to stop Australians from accessing more seats and cheaper airfares. The excuses have variously been human rights, decarbonising aviation, protecting Qantas jobs, helping Qantas pay for its new fleet, the national interest, keeping Qantas profitable, and, finally, the Treasurer chimed in with 'Qatar have unused access right now; that is the issue'. Is the Treasurer's statement the authoritative answer as to why this government chose to keep airfares high and reduce competition in our aviation sector, and, if not, what is the real reason for the decision? 14:14 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Thanks for the question, Senator McKenzie. I don't agree with the proposition—how she's framed that question—so I don't accept that. The government has been very clear that the decision on Qatar was made in the national interest. It was made by the transport minister following the same process that Mr McCormack made when he made a decision to put on hold an application by Qatar Airways when he was minister, so it has been very clear in all of the responses provided by the government that this decision was made in the national interest. That is the decision that Minister King made. She has been clear about that. We would also say that Qatar Airways are able to increase capacity if they wanted to right now. If they chose to put on more seats to Australia, they would be able to do that now. They are able to fly into Adelaide, Avalon, Cairns, Canberra and the Gold Coast. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, on a point of order? Senator McKenzie 207825 On relevance, in rejecting the premise of my question, was the finance minister suggesting that greater competition doesn't put downward pressure on airfares? The 10000 That is a debating point, Senator McKenzie. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING They can also fly larger planes into Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and Brisbane, but they are not currently doing so at the moment. Other airlines are also adding capacity. Cathay Pacific, Singapore Airlines and China Southern Airlines have all announced more flights. Airlines will continue to act in their commercial interests, but requests for additional capacity are determined by the minister for transport according to the national interest. Do you remember a concept like that—acting in the national interest as opposed to your political interest, which is your go-to method of operating? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, a first supplementary? 14:16 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Last week, the Assistant Treasurer raised eyebrows when he said that the Qatar Airways proposal to provide much-needed international seat capacity would 'make it unsustainable for the existing Australian based carriers'. Is the Assistant Treasurer's statement the authoritative answer? Can the minister confirm that, when the Assistant Treasurer said 'Australian based carriers', what he really meant was Qantas? 14:17 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I'll leave the Assistant Treasurer to respond to comments that he has made. I think the selective quoting that goes on in this chamber should also be acknowledged. Read the entire transcript of his interview. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator McKenzie, on a point of order? Senator McKenzie 207825 On relevance, it was hard to get the Assistant Treasurer's transcripts, given it took five days for him to actually upload them. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, that is not a point of order, and you know that very well. Minister Gallagher, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING The decision made by the minister was made in the national interest. As she has said, there are a number of considerations that go into making that final decision. Qatar could add increased capacity on their flights now. They could fly bigger planes. They could fly into a number of different airports. They choose not to do so at this stage. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator McKenzie, a second supplementary? 14:18 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Does the Treasury analysis demonstrate that more flights and more competition are good for consumers, exporters, the tourism industry and our economy? If so, isn't limiting flights and competition bad for consumers, exporters, the tourism industry and our economy? 14:18 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The Albanese government supports competition, but global aviation is not a free-for-all. There are country-to-country agreements in place, as there were and as there should have been under your government. Those country-to-country agreements continue. For example, Australian carriers would like to have greater access to European markets. They currently don't. Singapore would like greater increase to American markets. They don't. It's not a free-for-all. There are country-to-country agreements in place, and it is entirely appropriate that the minister, when considering this, makes her decision in the national interest, which is what she has done. Live Animal Exports 42 14:19 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Watt. Minister, heartbreaking footage on ABC 7.30 shows exported sheep collapsed from exhaustion and cowering in pain and fear. The brutality of this trade extends well beyond the suffering of sheep on ships of misery. This was really hard to watch. Australian regulators are failing sheep welfare again and again and it is clear that they haven't ensured compliance in the supply chain. Animal welfare advocates are doing the job of the department to again expose animal cruelty. I understand that the department had received extensive complaints about these incidents. You have now said that there is an investigation into this particular expose. Minister, have you seen the full 7.30 footage? Will you make the results of this investigation public? 14:20 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I thank Senator Faruqi. I, like I think many Australians, watched that footage with a degree of concern. It was extremely concerning footage that was aired on 7.30 about a week or so ago. In fact, the first time I was personally was shown that footage was while I was doing an interview with 7.30—they showed that footage to me—because this is being investigated, appropriately, by the department of agriculture. It conducts independent investigations, which I don't interfere in. So I did not seek to see the footage and I was not provided the footage by the department. It would have been highly inappropriate to do so, given that they're conducting that investigation in an independent way. I obviously did see the footage both when it was shown to me by 7.30 during my interview and when the program aired. As I said, the department that I'm the minister of did receive allegations of noncompliance with the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System, which is known as ESCAS, for sheep in Oman in late May. The department is now taking those allegations very seriously and actually did take immediate regulatory action while proceeding with its investigation. For instance, additional surveillance and additional reporting requirements were imposed on the exporters as an immediate step while the investigation is underway. Senator Faruqi I think you asked whether the outcomes of that investigation, once its complete, would be revealed publicly. I can assure you that that investigation will be dealt with in the way they are always dealt with. Actually this is the first time there has been one since I have been the minister, so I'm not sure what the history is. If the history is that those investigations are released, then they will be made public. As I said, I was concerned about that footage. It is important that Australia has a strong animal welfare record both at home and abroad. That's why we're having that matter investigated at the moment. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, first supplementary? 14:22 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Minister, an RSPCA survey shows that 71 per cent of Western Australians—and Western Australia is where the majority of Australian sheep are exported from—support a phase-out. Independent polling commissioned by my office shows that 85 per cent of Australians support a phase-out of live sheep exports. An overwhelming 82 per cent of submissions to the independent panel advising on the phase-out are supportive of it. Minister, can you confirm that Labor intends to keep its promise to phase-out live sheep exports? 14:23 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I thank Senator Faruqi. Yes, I can confirm—and every time I go to Western Australia I'm asked that question as well, as I was last week when I was over there again. Our government does intend to keep its promises, including this one—that we will phase out the live sheep export trade. You have cited some statistics. I know the RSPCA survey did indicate that over 70 per cent of Western Australians support the government's policy. In fact, today I understand the RSPCA has tabled a petition from about 40,000 Australians calling for this trade to be phased out. I know that in years gone by there have actually been members of the opposition who have supported the phase-out of live sheep exports. They are people like Ms Ley, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party. Senator Henderson is on the record as having supported in the past the phase-out of live sheep exports. I can only assume Senator Henderson retains that position, given she was on the record saying it should be phased out. We have every intention of carrying out our policy. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, a second supplementary? 14:24 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Thank you, Minister. In fact, a member of your own party is tabling that petition signed by more than 43,000 people calling on the government in this term of parliament to legislate the date to end live sheep exports within the shortest possible time frame. Again, independent polling shows that 59 per cent of people want the phase-out within two years. Minister, will you in this term of parliament legislate the date to end live sheep exports within the shortest possible time frame? 14:25 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Faruqi. I'm on the record many times saying that the government is committed to implementing our election policy to phase out the live sheep export trade by sea, but we also intend to do it in an orderly manner. That's because we understand that this would be a big adjustment, particularly for sheep producers in Western Australia but also for many others in the supply chain. We're not going to do this in a rushed manner that doesn't take into consideration the needs of the people who are involved in that trade. But we are committed to implementing the policy. As you're probably aware, I have appointed a panel to consult on this matter, and I'm expecting their recommendations soon. Their recommendations will include something around the time frame over which this policy should be implemented, but I've made clear that we won't be phasing out the trade in this term of office, because we do think it needs to be done in an orderly manner. But, as I say, I'm waiting for the recommendations of that panel as to the time frame in which we would phase out that trade. Cost of Living 44 14:26 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. The cost of living is continuing to hit many Australians hard, despite moderating inflation. People are often raising the pressure on their household budgets with me as I am out and about in South Australia. The Albanese Labor government hasn't wasted a day in implementing promises it made at the election, many of which were designed to reduce pressure on Australians in a higher-than-normal cost-of-living environment. Can the minister explain how the Albanese Labor government's policies have been providing targeted cost-of-living relief, particularly with respect to the cost of medicines? 14:26 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Smith for the question and for the work she's doing representing the good people of South Australia. We have been rolling out a carefully calibrated range of measures to fight inflation but also to assist Australians with the cost of living over the past 16 months. The government's cost-of-living package provides assistance with rent, with energy bills, with more affordable child care and with fee-free TAFE. But, in addition to all of these important investments, there's another area where we are already seeing very tangible results by reducing the cost-of-living pressures for Australian households, and that is in relation to cheaper medicines. In the first six months of the Labor government's cheaper medicines policy, we have seen Australians collectively save $138 million from 12 million cheaper scripts. That's $138 million that is going back into people's pockets. Before the election, we promised to reduce the maximum co-payment under the PBS from $42.50 to a maximum of $30. That's a reduction of 29 per cent. Those cost-savings are now a reality for Australians who are purchasing their medicine, and the proof is in the numbers. In the ACT, $3½ million has been saved. In New South Wales, it's $43 million. In the Northern Territory, $885,000 has been saved. In Queensland, $27 million has been saved. In South Australia, $9 million has been saved across 805,000 cheaper scripts in your state, Senator Smith. In Tasmania, $3 million has been saved on 260,000 cheaper scripts. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator GALLAGHER ING In Victoria, $36 million has been saved on 3.2 million cheaper scripts and, in WA, $16 million has been saved on 1.4 million cheaper scripts. We took this to the election. We said we would make medicines cheaper and that it would make a material difference, and it is. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Just a moment, Senator Smith. Order on my left. I should not have to call order two or three times. Senator Smith, a first supplementary? 14:28 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Last Friday, the government's changes to 60-day dispensing at pharmacies came into effect, meaning that Australians with a broad range of conditions that will require regular medications will pay less for their scripts. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, please resume your seat. Order on my left! Senator Hughes and Senator Ruston! Senator Smith, please continue. Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 Do I start again? The PRESIDENT 112096 Yes. The minister is asking yes. Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 Last Friday, the government's changes to 60-day dispensing at pharmacies came into effect, meaning that Australians with a broad range of conditions that will require regular medications will pay less for their scripts. It's reassuring to hear that the cheaper medicines changes implemented in January have already saved Australians millions of dollars. How will the changes to dispensing rules save millions of Australians even more on their medicines at a time when the cost of living is continuing to add pressure to household budgets? 14:30 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Smith for the question. Building on the significant savings already being experienced by Australians from the cheaper medicines that I just spoke about, last Friday saw the beginning of the 60-day dispensing changes. These are important changes; they will mean even more savings for four million patients who are on about 100 common medicines for ongoing health conditions like high blood pressure, high cholesterol, heart disease, osteoporosis and a range of other conditions. These individuals will now be able to get a 60-day script with the agreement of the doctor—and only in that circumstance—which means two scripts for the price of one, halving the cost of their medicine, relieving pressure on the health system and resulting in far fewer visits to the doctor and the pharmacy. We are looking forward to working with pharmacies through the next pharmacy agreement, which we are currently negotiating. It is good to have government and pharmacy back at the table working together. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, a second supplementary question? 14:31 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Australians who are still paying higher than normal prices for everyday costs like petrol, groceries and energy bills want to see a continued effort from government to reduce the cost of living. What else is the government doing which will deliver tangible results when it comes to reducing pressure on the hip pockets of Australians, and can the Minister explain how Australians are better off under an Albanese Labor government which is delivering policies that will reduce the cost of living instead of the constant wrecking we've seen from this lot? 14:32 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Smith for the question. We know that when those opposite were in government and they threw money around, it was not targeted and there was no care taken to prepare this country for the future. We inherited a mess and we're fixing it up bit by bit. We haven't taken our eye off addressing the pressure on inflation but are continuing to provide cost-of-living relief where we can without adding to the challenge of inflation. We have advocated for wage increases and we are seeing pleasing results there for the first time in a decade after those opposite opposed them at every point. We are delivering cheaper child care. We are delivering cheaper medicines. We are delivering fee-free TAFE and more university places so more Australians can get access to more training and better jobs. This is what Australians need from their government. The 180,000 fee-free TAFE places have reached their limit earlier than expected—60 of those places are going to women, and it's a fantastic result to see so many more people in training. (Time expired) Australian Broadcasting Corporation 45 14:33 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Senator Watt. Why is the ABC receiving funds from potential agents of foreign influence for its fact-checking partnership with RMIT? 14:33 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I am not actually aware of the suggestions that Senator Roberts is making. I'm a little wary about taking them at face value, because I know Senator Roberts has a certain view of the ABC that is not a view I share. And I'm not sure Senator Roberts has always accurately represented the situation when it comes to the ABC. I would invite Senator Roberts to present further evidence of that, if he has that evidence available. What I will say is that this government is a very strong supporter of the ABC. We recognise that it has a very important role as the national broadcaster. It has an important role not just in our big capital cities but also, particularly, in regional parts of Australia. It is often the only way of having local, regional stories told at the national level, and that's why we are supportive of the ABC. It also plays a very important role during natural disasters as a sort of critical information for people seeking to stay alive during emergencies. They are some of the reasons that we support the ABC, and they are some of the reasons why we were so concerned by the budget cuts that were imposed by the then coalition government on the ABC, because those cuts removed or reduced the ability of the ABC to broadcast those regional stories in some of those areas that Senator Roberts and Senator Hanson like to say they care about. Those cuts reduced the ABC's ability to provide some of that emergency information that is so vital to rural and regional communities. So we're very proud of the fact that we're strong supporters of the ABC. We don't join in the regular attacks that we see on the ABC from the conservative side of politics, because we think that the institution plays a very important role in our national democracy. We will always remain strong supporters of the ABC. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 14:35 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The International Fact-Checking Network's financial statements show that that foreign organisations gave the RMIT-ABC Fact Check partnership multiple grants. The International Fact-Checking Network receives funds from the US government, a private Norwegian foundation, foreign headquartered tech giant Meta, and a handful of private, shady organisations and foundations. Why didn't the ABC declare that it was receiving funding from private, foreign organisations and governments for its RMIT fact-checking partnership? 14:36 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland That's a fair point, Senator Brown. If there were a fact checker for some of the things that come out of One Nation, they'd be very, very busy. As for Senator Canavan, you wouldn't even start trying to check facts from Senator Canavan. You'd want to have more than a decade if you wanted to check facts from Senator Canavan. As I say, I'm very wary of entering into propositions that are being put by Senator Roberts when it comes to foreign interference and foreign influence. He is prone to saying various things about those issues, which don't always bear fact checking themselves. Again, Senator Roberts, I'd invite you to provide any hard evidence that you have to support the claims that you're making, but I repeat my position that we are strong supporters of the ABC. In fact, I think the public regard the ABC as the most trustworthy news agency in the country. That is regularly shown in surveys. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 14:37 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The government's Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill does not define the terms 'misinformation' and 'disinformation' in specifics. It would likely be left to biased and foreign influenced fact checkers. Facebook has suspended RMIT FactLab services after accusations of bias in fact-checking the Voice referendum and reports of lapsed accreditation. Minister, will the government abandon its Orwellian misinformation and disinformation bill given that the fact checker's credibility has been destroyed? 14:37 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Roberts, thank you for the question. I know that you and a number of members of the Liberal and National parties have a strong position, you say, in relation to matters of misinformation— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt, I remind you to direct your comments through the chair. Senator WATT 245759 Okay. I know that there are many senators from the Liberal, National and One Nation parties who say all sorts of things about misinformation. It doesn't seem to prevent them from presenting all sorts of misinformation about certain referendums that we're about to have in this country. It doesn't seem to prevent them joining in on misinformation and disinformation campaigns telling people that we're going to be facing parking tickets being legislated by the Voice and all sorts of nonsense like that. If you want to have a discussion about misinformation, I'd suggest that you keep your own house in order and come to this parliament in good faith rather than providing the constant misinformation we see from the other side. Aviation Industry 46 14:39 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Trade and Tourism. Will airfares to and from Australia be higher or lower as a result of the government's decision to block Qatar Airways' applications for 28 additional flights in and out of Australia? 14:39 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Cash for her question. It's interesting to note that it's taken three of the opposition's questions to get to the issue of tourism as it relates to the issues that the opposition have been raising today. Senator FARRELL I0N I'll take that interjection, Senator Ruston, and, no, I won't be filibustering. I'll be answering the question that I— Senator Cash I0M President, a point of order in relation to relevance. It is now well over 30 seconds into the answer. It was a very specific question in relation to airfares for Australians and whether or not they would be higher or lower as a result of the government's decision. The PRESIDENT 112096 I will remind the minister of his question, but I will also remind all senators in this place that the minister is entitled to take interjections. There was an interjection, which the minister also responded to, but I have reminded him of the question and I would ask all senators to listen in silence. Senator FARRELL I0N The reality is this: there is significant downward pressure on airfares at the moment. One of the reasons for that is that we, as a government, are correcting all of the problems that you created during the pandemic in terms of the ability of Australians to travel in and out of this country. Can I go through— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my left! Senator FARRELL I0N They want to ask the questions but they don't want to hear what the answers are. Let me go through some of the most recent— The 10000 Senator McKenzie, I've called you by name a number of times during question time. Tomorrow night, Tuesday night, is open ended adjournment. I invite you to make your comments there and not during question time. Minister Farrell. Senator FARRELL I0N I'm on duty tomorrow night. Let me go through some of the airlines that are now coming into Australia as a result of decision— Senator Birmingham H6X President, a point of order on direct relevance. This was a one-sentence question asked by Senator Cash. It went very precisely to a decision taken by the government in relation to Qatar Airways. As enlightening as it may be for the senator to go through a bunch of other decisions that may or may not have been taken, to be directly relevant to the question asked he should address the decision that he is being asked about, not other decisions. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Birmingham. Minister Wong. Senator Wong 00AOU On the point of order: the question was about price, and, last time I looked, supply and demand are relevant to price. The deputy leader and trade minister is going through the ways in which the government's policies are increasing the supply of flights in and out of Australia. It's entirely relevant. I know that economics is no longer relevant to you now you're in opposition. I know you don't want to let economics get in the way of politics— The PRESIDENT 112096 On the points of order, I will remind the minister of the question, but he was talking about cheaper airfares, which was part of the question that Senator Cash asked. I would once again ask senators to stop the disorderly interjections. Minister Farrell. Senator FARRELL I0N The opposition doesn't like us talking about all of the things that this government is doing in the tourism space to put downward pressure on prices. Let's go through some of them. China Southern will start Guangzhou— The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister Farrell. Senator Cash, first supplementary. 14:44 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Minister, did you advocate to the minister for transport or the Prime Minister for approval of Qatar Airways' application for additional flights into and out of Australia? 14:44 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Cash for her first supplementary question. I don't have to advocate propositions to either the minister for transport or the Prime Minister to put downward pressure on prices as they relate to airfares. Can I go through—I only got a chance— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister Farrell, please continue. Senator FARRELL I0N I only got a chance to go through one of the companies which are now flying into Australia, but— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N Okay, I will tell you some more. China Southern restarted the Shenzhen-Sydney route with three flights per week from 17 June 2023. Singapore Airlines has revealed that it will add 4,700 seats between Singapore and Australia from March 2024, including increased capacity to Adelaide, Cairns, Darwin, Perth, Sydney and Melbourne. Changes include upgrading to wide bodies— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, second supplementary? 14:45 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Minister, prior to the decision being made, did you discuss the application from Qatar Airways for additional flights in and out of Australia with any executive or representative of Qantas? If so, when? 14:46 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Well, I don't make a habit of discussing, particularly in this chamber, discussions I may or may not have with— Senator Cash I0M So you did? Senator FARRELL I0N Well, you can't draw that conclusion either. I respect, and I think one of the reasons why this mob here lost government is that they didn't respect, discussions between ministers and businesspeople in this country. I don't make a habit of coming into question time and revealing private discussions that I may or may not have with particular individuals, because that is not the way to build up trust between a government and businesses, and let me tell you: this government is all about building up trust, rebuilding the trust that— (Time expired) Human Rights: Tibet 48 14:47 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, about Tibet. Decisions regarding the selection, education and veneration of Tibetan Buddhist religious leaders are exclusively spiritual matters that should be made by the appropriate religious authorities within the Tibetan Buddhist tradition and in the context of the will of practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism. Foreign Minister, in your conversations with representatives of the Chinese government, what are you doing to ensure that these practices are protected in Tibet and to ensure that the Chinese government does not have a role in the selection of the next Dalai Lama? 14:48 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank Senator Rice for her question, and I also acknowledge that she is one of the co-chairs of the Australian All Party Parliamentary Friends of Tibet, as are my colleague Ms Templeman and, I think, Senator Dean Smith. Thank you for your work in that context. As I said to representatives of the Tibetan community with whom I met today—and I've met with a number of them previously—it's a very important part of engagement to have parliamentary groups whose members are, obviously, able as parliamentarians to engage with members of the community and to make statements. I understand that statements were made, although I wasn't, obviously, present at your media conference. It is the case that we are concerned about the erosion of rights and freedoms in Tibet, and we, in our engagement with our counterparts at a number of levels, continue to raise concerns with the representatives of the Chinese government about the erosion of rights and freedoms in Tibet. We are gravely concerned by disturbing reports of the separation of Tibetan children from their families, the detention of Tibetans for peaceful expression of political views and the suppression of Tibetan religious expression, as well as what are described as excessive security measures. We have raised our concerns with counterparts, and I would say that this is the first time an Australian government has done this. Australia raised our concerns in our national statement at the Human Rights Council in March, and I again say that that is the first time an Australian government has done that. In part, I would credit not just the parliamentary friends but also members of the community for their advocacy. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rice, first supplementary? 14:50 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Thank you, Foreign Minister. I'd like to know whether you have received anything of any substance from the Chinese government regarding the repression of human rights and freedom in Tibet and the Sinicisation of Tibetan culture. I would also draw your attention back to the key issue in my first question, which was about the Dalai Lama and what, if anything, you have received from the Chinese government in terms of their involvement in the selection of the next Dalai Lama. 14:50 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia As Senator Rice would be aware, I have spoken in this chamber and publicly about the importance of dialogue and engagement with China, but I've also spoken about the challenges of navigating that relationship. Obviously, there are differences which have to be managed, and those differences include a difference of views about political systems. The term of the question appears to suggest that these are matters we can obtain an outcome about within China. What we can do is to advocate, and we are seeking to do that both bilaterally and through multilateral processes. I think that advocacy matters in the international community, but, obviously, I appreciate that others would like a— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rice, second supplementary? 14:51 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Minister, six UN special rapporteurs have written to the Chinese government about forced labour in Tibet, raising concerns about the extensive labour transfer program in the Tibet Autonomous Region placing rural workers into low-skilled and low-paid industrial jobs and allegedly eroding Tibetan minority languages, cultural practices and religion. Will the government implement a ban on the import of goods produced by forced labour as agreed to in the ALP National Conference platform, given that Labor voted in support of this ban whilst in opposition? 14:52 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Rice. Prior to the election, we announced a strengthening of the modern slavery framework. I was part of the discussion about that after engaging with civil society advocates, including Walk Free. The approach we are taking is to work to strengthen our domestic framework so that we can ensure, as far as we are able, that Australian consumers can have confidence in the supply chains of products that they buy and goods and services that they purchase from whichever jurisdiction. I don't think there's anyone in Australia who would advocate or believe that it is acceptable for us or for companies to profit from forced labour. The approach we are taking is the Modern Slavery Act. The Attorney-General is leading that. A review has been conducted, and the government will formulate its response in relation to that review. Vocational Education and Training 49 14:53 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Skills and Training, Senator Watt. This week, we celebrate National TAFE Day, a time to highlight the achievements of our public TAFE system and help raise the perceptions of TAFE in our vocational education and training sector. I note that, at the beginning of last year, OECD data identified Australia as having the second-highest labour shortage amongst OECD countries. There's never been a more important time to invest in and value our vocational education and training sector. How is the Albanese Labor government helping to put TAFE at the heart of Australia's VET sector? 14:54 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I thank Senator O'Neill, who I know has a very longstanding commitment to the public TAFE institutions in her state of New South Wales. Studying at TAFE has provided a pathway to a rewarding career for millions of Australians. There are so many career paths to choose from. Not only does it deliver great jobs; TAFE also helps to meet demand for skilled workers right across Australia. Upon entering government, we were immediately struck by the skills shortage that we inherited. Is it any wonder given the billions of dollars of cuts made to TAFE under the leadership of people like Senator Cash? Over those 10 years it was, 'Cut, cut, cut.' No wonder we had that skills shortage! OECD data identified Australia as having the second-highest labour shortage amongst OECD countries—the second-highest labour shortage amongst OECD countries! That is the legacy of a decade of coalition government and cuts to TAFE. The skills priority list, which shows what occupations are in shortage, nearly doubled. It jumped from 153 to 286 in a year. What a mess! It's just another mess from the coalition government. That's why we took immediate action and brought together Australians, unions, employers and civil society at the Jobs and Skills Summit and worked with state and territory governments to fund 180,000 fee-free TAFE places in 2023. I'm very pleased to advise the chamber that we have already smashed that target. That's not all we're doing to support TAFE. The Albanese government is committed to ensuring that at least 70 per cent of Commonwealth VET funding goes to public TAFE. We support TAFE. We don't cut it, like we saw under the coalition. We're also delivering $50 million through the TAFE Technology Fund to improve IT facilities, workshops, laboratories and telehealth simulators across the country. We're working together to achieve better outcomes for students and to deliver more access and equity for the VET sector. We're backing TAFE. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Neill, first supplementary? 14:56 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Thank you very much, Minister, for that important response. At the Jobs and Skills Summit last year, which you just mentioned, the Albanese government committed to accelerate the delivery of fee-free TAFE places, with 180,000 places to be delivered this year. How is the Albanese Labor government increasing access to TAFE places and how are enrolments tracking in fee-free TAFE? 14:56 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'm very glad you asked, Senator O'Neill, because the Albanese government's plan to train, retrain or upskill Australians and tackle skill shortages is a monumental success, with more than 180,000 fee-free TAFE enrolments in the first six months. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Skills and Training visited Bentley TAFE in Perth just last week to announce that in the first six months about 215,000 Australians have enrolled for a fee-free course. Our target was 180,000. We've smashed it by achieving 215,000, and that's six months earlier than anticipated. It's nearly 35,000 places more than expected. That's 215,000 people who are accessing high-quality training— Senator Henderson ZN4 Is that like you smashed the economy? Senator WATT 245759 I know Senator Henderson is not happy to hear this good news about fee-free TAFE places and the number of Australians taking them up, because she and her colleagues wanted to cut TAFE when they had the opportunity. More than 51,000 students have enrolled in courses across health care, aged care and disability care. Many more in early childhood education and many more in digital courses— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Neill, second supplementary? 14:57 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Thank you, Minister Watt. The opportunities afforded by fee-free study can change lives and the economy for the better. We know that nine out of 10 future jobs will require post-school qualifications and four of those will require vocational level training. Minister, what has been the response to our policies to rebuild TAFE and put TAFE at the centre of our VET sector? 14:58 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator O'Neill. As you would expect, everyone who actually cares about dealing with the skill shortage in this country and anyone who cares about backing TAFE has been very positive about these policies. Unfortunately, there are some people who don't share those views. After 10 years of neglect it's, quite frankly, a relief and essential for the future of this nation that a party that believes in the value of education and training is back in charge. Those opposite never respected TAFE and the VET sector under their watch. You asked what the response has been to our policies. If left to those opposite, they would deprive thousands of students and workers of our fee-free opportunity and cost-of-living relief. In fact, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition called fee-free TAFE 'wasteful spending'. That's what the opposition thinks about fee-free TAFE and giving more skills to Australians—'wasteful spending'. Guess what decade it was when the Leader of the Opposition last said the word 'TAFE' in parliament? It wasn't this decade or the last decade. It was in 2004, over 19 years ago. They don't care about TAFE and they don't care about skills. Special Purpose Flights 50 14:59 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Minister, how are the media, the public or the parliament meant to hold ministers to account for travel via special purpose aircraft when no details of routes undertaken or passengers on flights are provided? 14:59 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you for the question. I understand this question has been asked in the House, and I would make this point: that the last time a SPA manifest was tabled under your government was August 2021. August of 2021 was the last time you tabled a manifest. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU Well, that's the truth. Senator Henderson ZN4 Oh, come on, Senator Wong! Senator WONG 00AOU Isn't it interesting? 'Oh, come on, Senator Wong'—for telling the truth. Now, the AFP advised that new SPA guidelines were required in November 2022— Senator Henderson ZN4 The people of Geelong are outraged about this. Senator WONG 00AOU I know the senator wishes to run a Corangamite campaign from the Senate, but I'm not sure that's going to work! Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Wong, I am calling the chamber to order. Senator Henderson, I invite you also to make your contributions on Tuesday night, not during question time. I've called you many times today. Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU I'm sorry, Senator Henderson; I assumed that you might stand for Corangamite, not Corio, but fair enough. I'm sure you might want to do that as well. The AFP advised that new SPA guidelines were required in November 2022— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson! Order! Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU As I was saying, we were advised that new SPA guidelines were required, and the government published new special-purpose aircraft reports to present in a manner consistent with revised security guidelines. In other words, security agencies gave clear advice, we followed that advice and, unlike those opposite, we are being transparent and publish what we can and do not publish what we cannot. An opposition senator interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU I've answered the question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, first supplementary? 15:02 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria What is the security risk that's created by revealing the routes flown, potentially without dates, of special-purpose aircraft flights? What is the security risk created by revealing the passengers on board those flights? 15:02 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia It is surprising that a responsible opposition would ask about security risks in that context. What I can say is that the guidelines were revised as a consequence of AFP advice and the government is publishing information in accordance with those guidelines. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, second supplementary— The PRESIDENT 112096 Sorry, Senator Hume; please resume your seat. Senator O'Neill, I extend the same invitation to you to also join Tuesday night's adjournment list. Senator Hume, second supplementary? 15:03 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Will the minister confirm that there were no comparable commercial flights available on every occasion that the Minister for Defence has used a special-purpose aircraft for domestic travel purposes? 15:03 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The Minister for Defence has made clear publicly and to the parliament that everything he has done—every flight he has taken—has been in pursuit of his duties as the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence on behalf of the country. With that, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 51 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 51 15:04 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked today. I want to start by talking about the competitiveness of our aviation sector. What we're seeing is a dire situation here in Australia. Whether it's for leisure or for their commerce, or for work, where Australians need to travel across the country—of course, needing to make use of the flights that are provided by our domestic suppliers—we're seeing a significant rise in costs. Prices went up, naturally, during COVID. We can all understand that, but they haven't come down to the degree that Australians would expect. Indeed, internationally, we're seeing significant costs for Australians and also to get visitors here to visit some of our tourist destination hotspots across the country—it's not happening. Yet the Prime Minister, when asked a question about this in question time in the House, said that Australia, arguably, actually has one of the most competitive airline industries. I don't know, maybe it's easier for him because, as Prime Minister, he just gets to fly around on the SPA all the time. He doesn't get to experience what Australians are facing, he's a bit out of touch. Anyone who is booking flights or who needs to travel through airports knows that we don't have the level of servicing that existed prior to the pandemic; be that internationally or domestically, it isn't occurring. The Prime Minister is proving yet again that he is out of touch. This is a significant problem that needs to be addressed. We're not seeing any action by this government in helping to address this. The fact of the matter is that we have other airlines that want to be able to come into Australia to compete and to provide efficient and economical routes in and out of the country—indeed, possibly within Australia—and this government is not facilitating that. The clanger of the week—and it's only Monday—probably goes to Senator Wong in her answer to the question. She said, 'Those opposite might recall that governments don't have the luxury of focusing on vested interests.' She got quite a rise out of this side, because we see this government, time and again, bowing to vested interests, particularly those of the union movement. We're about to have, no doubt any minute now, the industrial relations legislation in the other place. That's a solution looking for a problem—or the problem is a union problem, of course, which is that union memberships are down. So, in repaying their favours to their vested interests, they're introducing this legislation. But I digress! The reality is that we need a more competitive space in the area of airlines. The government is more than asleep at the wheel; they're actually complicit, I believe, in not facilitating a more competitive environment for Australian airlines, and even Australians, to be able to engage with a competitive environment that would allow for the cheaper flights, and more flights, that would occur. Come to Western Australia and see this. Not many of those opposite do; I realise that we're a long way away over there and there's only one flight that you can get from Perth to Canberra. It's with one airline—there used to be two that operated—so more needs to be done. More needs to be done to improve the competitiveness of our airline system. That's why we're calling for an inquiry. We're calling for an inquiry into this situation with Qatar and what seems to be a deliberate decision by this government to block them for anti-competitive reasons. So I encourage the government to adopt this inquiry: bring it on and allow it to happen. It could go into other issues— Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Senator Sheldon, I know you would love to delve into some of those issues that are occurring in our airline sector! You would very much enjoy the opportunity, no doubt! So bring it on—bring on this inquiry. Let it happen and let's get some serious investigation into what's going on within our airline sector. 15:09 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I don't think anyone over on that side of the chamber was listening when Senator Wong, Senator Gallagher and Senator Farrell answered questions about Qatar. Senator Gallagher said that the government had been very clear that the decision on Qatar was made in the national interest. She went on to say that it was made by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government following the same process as Mr McCormack had followed when he was the transport minister and decided to put on hold an application by Qatar Airways. So I'm not quite sure what they're going on about. Minister King has been very clear about the decision she made. We would also say that Qatar Airways are open to increase capacity, if they want to, right now. That was the answer Minister Gallagher gave. If they chose to put on more seats to Australia, they would be able to do that now. They are able to fly into Adelaide, Avalon, Cairns, Canberra and the Gold Coast. They can also fly large planes into Sydney, Perth and Brisbane. But they're not doing it at the moment. It might also be useful to remind those opposite that requests for additional capacity are made routinely by governments around the world, including Australia, and those requests are not always granted, including when you were in government. Now that you're in opposition you don't like the decisions. The minister determined that it was not in Australia's national interest to grant Qatar Civil Aviation Authority's request. That is the right of a minister. It was the right of Minister McCormack when he was the transport minister and it is the right of Minister King now that she is the transport minister. She said that she had not based the decision on any one company's or person's interest; she made the decision in the national interest. She is supporting recovery and sustainable growth in the aviation sector and at the same time doing her best to ensure that when Australians travel overseas they can have confidence about how they'll be treated. We know that tourism is important for Australia, and it's important that Australians can access international travel. That's why in Australia we have air services agreements with more than 100 countries. Capacity is going up. Cathay Pacific, China Southern, Singapore Airlines—they've all announced more flights. Qatar Airways can operate as many flights as it wants to the secondary gateways, as I outlined before, including Adelaide, Darwin, Canberra, Cairns and the Gold Coast. So I don't understand the opposition from the opposition. Sometimes it's just about finding an opportunity to say no and to have a go at the government for making a decision that is the same decision their minister made when he was in government. Those over on that side, when they were in government, gave billions of taxpayer dollars to Qantas and received nothing in return, yet they stand there and complain about a decision we made about Qatar which was the same decision they made about Qatar. They oversaw the mass outsourcing of jobs—a labour hire mess—and that drove down wages and conditions across the sector. They commissioned a review into Sydney airport only to spend almost two years sitting on it, leaving it to us to sort out in government. We are in the process of sorting out the mess that they created over the last 10 years. All they want to do is throw stones and have a go at us, when the decisions that we are making are very similar, if not the same, as those they made when they were in government. 15:14 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland What this debate shows is the government's lip service to the issues of inflation and the cost of living for the Australian people is just that—lip service. When they've had a test, and an opportunity to bring down living costs for Australians, they have buckled and taken the side of big businesses in this country rather than that of Australian families who just want to save some money and go home to see their families in Europe, even taking a holiday if they can afford to do that. The government does not care about those people because the modern Labor Party is reflexively on the side of big business. Their reflex action is to support the big businesses of this nation. It's a shame Senator Tony Sheldon had had to leave this chamber because I feel sorry for him. He has manfully taken up the charge against Qantas and its disgraceful treatment of many of its workers over the years, including during the pandemic. It treats its baggage handlers like rubbish. Alan Joyce has done that. The Senator has been trying to hold Qantas to account for this, and as soon as the government have a decision that could potentially introduce some competition and make Qantas actually compete for its customers to provide a better service, the government takes the side of Alan Joyce—the big boss who is paid tens of millions of dollars. They take his side, not the workers' side and certainly not the Australian consumers' side. Their risible arguments in this chamber tonight don't deserve the description of 'arguments'—they are simply the talking point of Qantas that have been written on a sheet for them to read out. It's embarrassing for them to have to do it. The idea here that was put by my esteemed colleague before is that somehow it is just us—it's just the opposition taking this position on the Qatar Airways decision. Nothing could be further from the truth. Labor state governments are against this decision—both Queensland and South Australia have asked the government to review this decision. The Labor Party's own national president, Mr Wayne Swann, has come out and asked for the government to review this crazy, inexplicable decision. Explain that! Explain why so many people are opposed. Now the government is resting back on the fact that a few years ago a coalition minister when presented with this issue didn't say no to Qatar Airways—he just put a pause on it and considered it. Eventually, those fights were allowed, but the minister at the time paused to consider it. That's very different to the decision made here. The circumstances then—pre-pandemic, pre the inflationary breakout we have seen—are very different too. Prices for overseas flights have gone up by more than 50 per cent since COVID. It's a very different environment that the coalition faced at the time, calling for a very different response. I can't remember, back when Mr McCormick made the decision, any opposition to his decision to hold and get more information on the Qatar Airways flight. Whereas now you have pretty much every sector of the Australian community united against this decision, including Labor's own politicians in other jurisdictions. I'm sure there are a lot of ministers over there very upset with this as well. There would be a lot of discussion in the cabinet tonight about this decision because they are paying a heavy price for this decision. People have found them out. Over the past year, we've heard from the Prime Minister that he is going to act and do something on the cost of living. They have their tired lines that they're doing something on child care, on pharmacies—but have childcare costs gone down for people? Are you paying less for medicines? It doesn't seem so—everything seems to be going up. When they have been tested, and could have made a decision that would have materially lowered prices for the Australian people, they failed. This government have failed and people are waking up to that now. They're waking up to the fact they're not actually on their side. They are much more comfortable swanning around with big businesses in this nation than dealing with the tough issues that Australian families are facing. We have a situation where they don't like the Qatar flights but, as we heard in question time today, the Deputy Prime Minister seems using our military aircraft as his own personal taxi service. He has racked up $3.6 million in fees in next to no time. How has this happened? He won't explain to the Australian people. He has been completely unaccountable. All the rumours are that he's using it to fly from Avalon to Canberra when there's a perfectly good commercial airport just an hour down the road from where he lives—in Geelong. I have to drive nearly an hour to get to the airport—nearly 45 minutes. Many of my colleagues in the cities have to drive more. Why is the Deputy Prime Minister using it, allegedly? He won't tell us. I think we deserve to know. It's your money. It's the taxpayers' dollars. Why aren't they telling us what the Deputy Prime Minister is doing with the aircraft you pay for? People are struggling right now and they deserve leaders in this place who at least try to share those struggles and certainly try to do something about it. This government is doing nothing about the cost-of-living crisis facing Australian families, and nothing could spell that out clearer than they decision and refusal to take Australians' side rather than Qantas's side on the Qatar Airways decision. 15:19 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Well, this is week 1 of a two-week sitting of parliament, and we're straight back into faux outrage hour here in the Senate. You guys need a credibility check. Where was your outrage, how loud were your voices and how sincere was your concern when your mate former minister McCormack made exactly the kind of decision that you are so aghast at here today? You need a credibility check. This is faux outrage, and we see it time and time again in Senate question time, where you come in here and question decisions made by the government and policies the government is undertaking when you never had the courage or the guts to question anything in your government which touched on these areas. These are the same decisions you made in government. Perhaps today, instead of criticising Minister Catherine King, who said quite clearly that she made these decisions in the national interest, and playing up your faux outrage, some self-reflection would be appropriate—some self-reflection on some of the decisions the former government made on the aviation sector, particularly during COVID, such as the decision to sit idly by and watch Virgin Australia collapse into administration. I don't remember outrage or a chorus of concern from those opposite when that happened, or when you oversaw the mass outsourcing of jobs and the labour hire mess that saw wages go down and conditions lessen across the aviation sector—I don't remember an hour in this place dedicated to your outrage then—or when you commissioned the Harris review into Sydney Airport, only to sit on it, or, indeed, when you denied workers at dnata JobKeeper, leaving those workers and their families in the lurch. I don't remember a single minute of debate that you devoted to what was happening to those workers at dnata when the aviation sector was in trouble. You had the opportunity in government to make different decisions when it came to the aviation sector, and you have the opportunity now. You have the opportunity now, indeed, when it comes to the breadth of issues across our industrial system and to our Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill. You have the opportunity to turn some of this faux outrage into real concern about some of the things which have happened and continue to happen in the aviation sector, which this government is taking action and introducing legislation on. We are closing loopholes like those on labour hire, which are seeing companies use labour hire to undercut their agreements with their workers. You have the opportunity to change your position and change your mind on loopholes that affect casual workers and leave people stuck classified as casuals when they don't want to be. Of course, among all the devastating loopholes you have the opportunity to engage in a little self reflection on, there are the loopholes in the gig sector which have seen, over the past decade, workers being subjected to unsafe conditions and paid less than $10 an hour. Some of these workers have told Senate committees they're being paid as little as $6 an hour, leading to dangerous conditions, because we know there is a link between what you get paid and your safety at work in this sector. You have an opportunity to close these loopholes now too. In this moment of faux outrage, reflect on what you have overseen in the aviation sector and what you allowed to happen on your watch when it came to things like labour hire, job security, protecting Australian industry and competition in the market. You oversaw the collapse of Virgin Australia. That's a pretty significant risk to competition in the aviation sector in this country. You have an opportunity to turn faux outreach hour into real concern; you have an opportunity to get behind the government's legislation which will be coming into this place to close loopholes; you have an opportunity to be a part of strengthening a sector you seemed to be so concerned about today in question time; and you have an opportunity to make a meaningful difference in the lives of some of the workers in our country who are subjected to the most dangerous conditions—conditions which we in this country have fought over many, many decades to avoid in every other sector. Companies are completely undermining basic principles like the minimum wage. You have opportunity to turn your faux outrage here into action, and I welcome you doing that. Let's have an hour on real reform in the aviation sector and what we can do on IR. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Before I give you the call, Senator McGrath, I note, from the whips, that you will split your time between yourself and One Nation, so I ask for the clocks to be set for three minutes. 15:24 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland The opposition is calling upon Labor to stand up and explain the policy behind the decision to restrict information concerning the details of politicians' flights. This is of particular importance because we seem to have had the Deputy Prime Minister use the Royal Australian Air Force as a golf buggy to transport his golf clubs around this country. We have a Deputy Prime Minister in this country who is echoing Donald Trump in becoming more concerned about golf and his golf clubs and use of official transport to transport golf clubs around this country than focusing on policy. The Deputy Prime Minister of this country has spent $3.6 million of taxpayers' money flying around the country, flying around the world. It may be the case that these flights are legitimate, but we don't know because the government will not release the information about these flights. Now, $3.6 million is a lot of money. It is a Lotto win. You can retire. If you win the Lotto on Saturday night then you don't have to turn up for work on Monday, so it is a good lot of money. He has spent $3.6 million over 16 months. I pulled out the calculator and that is $225,000 a month on flights. That is $56,000 a week on flights. That is $8,000 a day on flights. It may be the case that all of these flights are appropriate. It is important for security reasons that politicians in the senior levels of government are transported around the country but it is not important transport for your golf clubs to be transported around the country. As important, as expensive and as nice as those golf clubs may be, I think the taxpayers of this country have a right to know whether or not the Deputy Prime Minister has been using the Royal Australian Air Force to transport his golf clubs around this country. We the taxpayers, the people who pay for the politicians in this place, have a right to know whether the Deputy Prime Minister is more concerned with lowering his handicap than lowering the bill he sends to taxpayers for his use of taxpayer funded flights. The opposition will be following up to the government over coming weeks on the use of these flights, trying to get the information from the government, because it is the right of the taxpayers to know how their money is being spent. Question agreed to. Australian Broadcasting Corporation 54 15:28 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I rise to take note of the answers the government gave today in relation to foreign influence of the RMIT-ABC Fact Check partnership. As anybody who has been put in Facebook jail knows, the credibility of fact-checkers is in shambles. The fact-checkers are meant to be independent yet they are not. Who fact-checks the fact checkers? Facebook has recently suspended its partnership with RMIT FactLab after media reports revealed the director, former ABC journalist Russell Skelton, is openly campaigning for a yes vote in the upcoming referendum while his organisation dishes out fact checks on the no campaign—hardly impartial, completely conflicted. Then there is the potential foreign influence on the fact-check partnership. Here are some facts Minister Watt sought and ought to know. Financial statements from the International Fact-Checking Network, the IFCN, show a foreign organisation gave grants to the RMIT-ABC partnership. The IFCN's funders are a combination of shady private foundations, foreign-headquartered technology giant Meta and even the United States government via its embassy in Bangkok. Why is the taxpayer funded national broadcaster, the ABC, seemingly receiving funds from potential agents of foreign influence for its fact checks? What sort of influence on fact checks do foreign agents buy with this money? These are all frightening questions about how far the influence of this shady, rapidly growing censorship industry reaches. Fact-checking is being used in a censorship campaign to shut down dissent. During COVID, fact checkers in the Department of Health and Ageing told social media to take down a meme about masks being useless. That was always true. The gold standard Cochrane review confirmed masks are useless. The fact checkers' outrageous behaviour demonstrates that the government's misinformation and disinformation bill should be dead in the water. It's time for the government to admit defeat and abandon their Orwellian censorship power grab. The key to human progress is freedom. Human progress starts with freedom of thought and freedom of sharing thoughts. Freedom of speech is fundamental to human progress. Question agreed to. Live Animal Exports, Human Rights: Tibet 55 15:30 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Senator Watt) and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked by Senators Faruqi and Rice today relating to live sheep exports and to Tibet. Animal welfare advocates are having to do the government's job yet again. ABC's 7.30 aired heart-wrenching footage of Australian sheep collapsed in exhaustion and cowering in pain and fear. The brutality of this trade extends well beyond the suffering on the ships of misery. This was really hard to watch. Australian regulators are failing to ensure the welfare of sheep again and again. They can't put independent observers on every ship that meets the criteria. They can't stop every incident of cruelty. They can't ensure compliance. All this points to one thing and one thing alone: this cruel trade is irredeemable and must be shut down. It's good that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has reaffirmed Labor's commitment to phasing out live sheep exports, but it's deeply disappointing that he has refused to commit to legislating an end date for the phase-out in this term of parliament. This is despite immense community pressure to do so. This is what people want and expect. A quarter of Australians think there should be an immediate ban on live exports, while 59 per cent believe the phase-out should happen within two years. Over 43,000 Australians have signed a petition calling for an end to live sheep exports as quickly as possible, and this was tabled by a member of the government in the House today. Labor have been promising to end live sheep exports for years. They went to the last two federal elections with this policy. But today the minister has, sadly, refused to confirm that Labor will be legislating to end live sheep exports within this term of parliament. In saying this, Minister Watt is ignoring the community and the reality of the suffering, deaths and stress that hundreds of thousands of sheep are forced to endure. This makes a mockery of any claims that they care about animal welfare. How many sheep will need to suffer and die before Labor end this horrific trade? Labor must move faster. Legislate the date in this term and end this trade of misery within two years. 15:32 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria My question today to the Minister for Foreign Affairs went to the heart of what Australia could do to apply pressure to the Chinese government to end the appalling abuses of human rights in Tibet—a country that was occupied by the Chinese forces 64 years ago, where Tibetan people have had their culture, religious rights, freedom of speech and freedom of movement obliterated. I'm pleased that the foreign minister told us that she'd met with the delegation of Tibetans who today are raising with parliamentarians the appalling situation in Tibet—good on them!—but I was incredibly disappointed with the limp response I got today. I asked what the foreign minister and the Australian government were doing about the appalling oppression of Tibetans, including whether they were applying pressure to the Chinese government so that the Chinese government doesn't interfere in the selection of the next Dalai Lama. Had the foreign minister even raised this issue with her counterpart? She refused to answer. We know that the Chinese government have form in this regard. They kidnapped the Panchen Lama, at the age of six, 27 years ago and he hasn't been seen since. As for the other questions I asked—about the oppression of human rights; the Sinicisation of Tibetan culture; the use of forced labour; the children removed from their families and sent to be educated in Chinese boarding schools, some returning to their families only once a year and losing their language and culture—all the foreign minister could tell me was: 'We have raised these issues. Essentially, if they don't listen, what more can we do?' There is so much more that we can do. We could ban the import of goods produced with forced labour, as per the Labor Party's national conference platform. We could instigate Magnitsky sanctions on Chinese government officials who are responsible for human rights violations. We know from a recent survey that two-thirds of Australians have said that human rights accountability is more important than a resumption of trade with China. Despite the countless merciless attacks on Tibetan people, however, I am constantly in awe of the warmth and resilience of the Tibetan people and community. To all the people of Tibet: please know that we hear you and that your voices matter, not just on Tibet lobby day today but every day. We in the Greens will continue to amplify your voices inside and outside the parliament. Question agreed to. NOTICES 56 NOTICES Presentation 56 Postponement 59 COMMITTEES 59 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 59 BUSINESS 59 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 59 15:36 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators for today: (a) Senator Cadell, for personal reasons; and (b) Senators Reynolds and Fawcett, on account of parliamentary business. Question agreed to. BILLS 60 BILLS Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fairer Contracts and Grants) Bill 2023 60

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fairer Contracts and Grants) Bill 2023

First Reading 60 15:37 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and for related purposes. Question agreed to. Senator WATERS 192970 I present the bill and move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 60 15:37 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill. Leave granted. Senator WATERS 192970 I table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— I welcome the opportunity to introduce this Bill today, and take a step towards cleaning up politics by reducing the influence of big money. If passed, this Bill would stop the same corporations, and their close associates, who make political donations from putting their hands out for public money in the form of contracts, tenders, grants and approvals. The Bill bans donations to the political party in government, including to a coalition partner, for 12 months before and after any contract is entered into, or tender submission or application is made. It also cancels out any contract, grant, approval, licence, permit or tender that was wrongly awarded and requires that Commonwealth money be repaid. There has never been a more important time for donations reform. Our democracy is at risk. Public trust in parliament and politicians is at an all-time low, and the community feels less and less confident that their representatives represent them, rather than doing the bidding of their corporate donors. And it's no wonder. The Big 4 consulting firms donated more than $4.3 million to both sides of politics over 10 years, and secured $8 billion in government contracts over that same time period. That's a pretty good return on investment for the Big 4 consulting firms, and a terrible deal for the rest of us. Regardless of the source or the amount, the obvious expectation from corporations is that donations will return results for their bottom line. They're buying outcomes. This feeds the public perception that decisions in our parliament are made improperly, with self-interest and the interests of donors and mates consistently overriding the public interest. In July this year, PwC announced they will no longer make donations to political parties to ensure "the highest standard of governance". But there are three more consultancies in the Big 4. The Big 4 should not be able to further entrench their power and influence over government, and their profit margins, by making political donations, and certainly not when they are tendering for a government contract. Our current system is one of legalised bribery. The public should not have to rely on corporations choosing to no longer donate to political parties because a scandal exposed corruption and dodgy deals. Money shouldn't be able to buy government contracts, development approvals, political access or political influence. That's not a controversial statement, it's common sense. And it's a commonly held opinion amongst the people we're supposed to be representing. 74% of Australians support banning political donations from organisations that receive funding from government contracts, including 80% of Coalition voters and 70% of Labor voters. This isn't rocket science. Donations to political parties shouldn't be able to buy government contracts or grants, and nor should they be able to buy environmental approvals. Adani and its subsidiaries donated $250,000 to the Coalition in the same financial year as it received final environmental approval for its mega coal mine, including receiving $100,000 of that sum in the month after that final approval was given. Australians deserve a strong, independent and well-resourced public service that is not hollowed out by voracious private contractors, and that is making decisions in the interests of the community, not vested interests and big donors. It is only when we stop large political donors from using their donations promises to secure favours, like contracts, or approvals, or access to decision makers, that we will see our system work in the public interest. The Bill seeks to level the playing field and avoid those with more money gaining unequal access to government. It does so by strengthening the integrity of grants administration, tendering and procurement processes, and assessment of lucrative projects. These amendments will prevent donations from influencing the allocation of government funds or securing project approvals. This is needed to increase public confidence that decisions regarding allocation of government resources are actually guided by the public interest. The 2022 election results confirmed that the Australian public want a more transparent and representative government that acts in the public interest. This bill is an important first step towards getting big money out of politics and restoring public confidence in our democracy. If Australia's biggest consulting company has recognised the perceived corruption by stopping all political donations so should Labor and the LNP. It's time to break all the links. Let's come together to ensure politicians work in the public interest, not the interest of their donor mates. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Senator WATERS 192970 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 61 COMMITTEES Environment and Communications References Committee 61 Reference 61 15:38 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Pursuant to standing order 57(3), the Senate shall now proceed to a division on the amendment moved by Senator Hanson-Young to a motion to refer a matter to the Environment and Communications References Committee. The question on closure will be put first and if that is agreed to I will put the question on the amendment. For the sake of clarity: any decision on the amendment does not necessarily stop debate on the substantive motion. Further debate, if required, is possible after the proposed reference is called on at item 19 of today's order of business. The question is that the question be now put on the amendment moved by Senator Hanson-Young. Question agreed to. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question before the chair is that the amendment moved by Senator Hanson-Young to a motion to refer a matter to the environment and communications references committee be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [15:43]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

 10 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 25 NOES Ayres, T. Babet, R. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. McCarthy, M. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Debate interrupted.

 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 62 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Aviation Industry 62 15:46 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 A letter has been received from Senator McKenzie: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: In the midst of a cost-of-living crisis the Albanese Labor government has taken decisions that keep airfares high, failing Australian travellers, tourism operators and exporters. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:46 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I rise to debate this matter of public importance that has seen consumers, Australian travellers, Australian exporters and Australian customers right around the country exercised. In the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, this government has once again been caught asleep at the wheel. They are making decisions each and every day across a range of portfolios which make it harder for mum and dad to pay the mortgage, which make it harder for mum and dad to pay the school fees and which make it more and more difficult for Australian families to make ends meet. The latest disastrous decision by the Anthony Albanese government is to reject the application by Qatar Airways to have more international flights. Why is that important? It sounds quite technical. It's because, right now, Australians are paying 50 per cent more for international flights than they were pre COVID. It's because Qantas is making a motza—a big enough motza to pay their CEO a lot of money. A lot of money! It's because there seems to be a cosy relationship between this government, particularly the Prime Minister, and this company. And it's because Australians also need a diversity of choice in destination; not just to go where this carrier or that carrier determines but to have a range of options open to them. And for those of us that live out in the regions, it's to facilitate the freight task. The more of those big planes coming in and leaving Australian capital cities, the more tourists we get coming in; the more choice Australians have—at a lower cost—in going out; and the more the bellies of those planes are filled with fantastic Australian exports. We saw the tourism industry come out a little while ago and say that this decision has cost the Australian tourism sector in excess of $788 million. That is real jobs in real communities right now. We know this decision has meant that the opportunity lost in terms of price increases is in excess of 40 per cent. That is a lot of money in a cost-of-living crisis. What does this government do when asked: 'Why did you make the decision; just tell us why'? They refuse to answer it. We saw it in question time here in the Senate today, as the foreign minister, the finance minister and the trade minister were asked: what was the real reason? Why has this government put forward seven different reasons, from protecting Qantas's profits—an actual reason, given by the assistant Treasurer—to local jobs, to the national interest? I think Minister King put forward that she wanted to lower emissions by not having so many planes in the sky. It's just incredible. It's as if the laws of economics and the laws of physics do not apply to this government. Don't ask them about the principles of science and economics. It's a little bit like their Voice argument: it's all about the vibe; listen to the rhetoric. Well, things are wrong with this decision. The Australian public deserves to know why you made it, that it wasn't just a cosy special relationship, wasn't just a dirty deal so that they paint 'yes' on some of their planes or that the Prime Minister prefers preferential treatment. If that is not the case, this is your opportunity to stand up and say why. Now we've got the president of the ALP, Wayne Swan—the former Treasurer, who is also the mentor of Jim Chalmers—coming out and saying that this decision needs to be reversed. He's not saying 'review it'; he's saying 'reverse it'. Then we've got Steven Miles from Queensland saying the decision needs to be reviewed. We've got Malinauskas, the Premier of South Australia, saying this needs to be looked at. And what does Tony Burke get up and say this morning? He says, nope, Minister King got it right; this government got it right. I tell you what, something stinks about this decision, and we all know it; you know it. That is why the industrial left is furious that you're protecting Qantas, their archenemy, and the far left wants to re-nationalise. Those sensible among you know it's the wrong decision for Australians, who are facing a cost-of-living crisis. 15:51 Senator WHITE IWK Victoria I've got a long history in the airline industry—a very long history. I've acted for a range of employees in that industry for 25 years, and what I can tell you about this coalition is that I've seen an abandonment of people in the airline industry and this country, dating back to 2001. In fact, next week is the anniversary of the collapse of Ansett. I remember coming here to these halls, walking around and begging coalition ministers to intervene in the Ansett crisis—begging them. They slammed doors in our faces, and 16½ thousand Australians lost their jobs when Ansett collapsed; 4½ thousand of them were ASU members. This coalition thinks only about politics when it comes to the airline industry. They do not think about real people. Again—history repeating itself—what did we see when Virgin went into administration in 2020? We saw exactly the same thing again: shut the doors, do nothing, let aviation in this country suffer. So, this born-again view about airfares and how we should negotiate air services agreements—honestly, the previous minister, Mr McCormack, in fact rejected the Qatar Airways application for more flights to Australia. That tells you that this is something that is not in the national interest. And it is ridiculous to sit here and hear Senator McKenzie lecture us about air services agreements, the cost of living and the cost of flights when the senator has little or no understanding of the way the airline industry operates in this country. We have more than 100 air service agreements with different countries around the world. We have eight international airlines from China operating 90 services a week, which is up by 30 services since June. Vietnam Airlines has announced non-stop flights to Vietnam. Cathay Pacific has increased flights to Brisbane. Air India has doubled services to Australia, and Singapore Airlines has announced more flights. It's also the case that Qatar Airways, as we heard during question time, can operate as many flights as it would like through Adelaide, Darwin, Canberra, Cairns and the Gold Coast. The hypocrisy of the coalition in this debate is unparalleled in my view. I don't believe their spin. They don't really have a leg to stand on. What I know about the cost-of-living matter is that the 2023-24 budget directed nearly $15 billion in targeted support to the most vulnerable Australians who were suffering after a decade of stagnated wages, thanks to the coalition's inaction while they were in government. When I'm casting my mind back and thinking about the government's record on cost-of-living relief in the last 18 months, it strikes me just how much this government has delivered to make life easier for Australians amidst what is a difficult set of economic circumstances. We've got the energy bill relief the government legislated last year which has been rolling out. In my own electorate, I know my office has been dealing with dozens of people in Victoria, mainly seniors and pensioners, who have taken that up. Last week, I went to a childcare centre, and the way they talked about the easing of pressure on the cost of living because of the cheaper child care policy was astounding to me. They told me how this policy is absolutely making a difference to lots and lots of families. I've heard plenty of positive feedback also from constituents, doctors and consumer advocacy groups in relation to the impact of 60-day prescriptions. It will have an effect on millions of Australians with ongoing health conditions. So really that's what the cost-of-living issue is about—doing real things for people day in and day out—and that is what this government has done in the budget and since the day we took office. As I said, the coalition talking about air services agreements is just galling, to be frank. It's absolutely galling. 15:57 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I wonder, as many constituents do, who does Qantas have photographs of? How can Qantas engage in restrictive trade practices, fraud and a scorched earth policy approach to industrial relations and still be called Australia's national airline? Are these our national values now? The decision of the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to stop Qatar Airways from increasing their number of flights to Australia provided a direct financial benefit to Qantas. As a result, everyday Australians are now paying higher airfares on those international routes than if Qatar had been allowed to provide competition to Qantas. I note that, over the last 12 months, Senator Sheldon has been resolute in his attempts to hold Qantas accountable through the Senate committee system. I welcome Senator Sheldon's comments and appreciate his one-man war on the temple of uncaring corporate greed that Qantas has become. Let me be clear, Qantas is an embarrassment to free enterprise competition. Everyday Australians are now faced with dysfunctional, unaffordable air travel simply because the government keeps sticking its nose in where it does not belong. It shouldn't be up to the government to decide how many air flights an airline has. The free market should sort that out. Free enterprise competition based on pricing, service, safety and availability would sort that out. Passengers make their purchase decisions on aircraft tickets based on the most fundamental duty of an airline, which is delivering a passenger to their destination at the same time as their luggage. It's a skill Qantas seems to have lost. Free enterprise competition ensures the airline with the lowest fares, best service, safest planes and most reliable luggage will gain market share, and airlines who treat their customers with hubris and arrogance will fare badly. Free enterprise competition makes companies better. We do not have free enterprise competition in many industries in Australia, including with airlines. We have crony capitalism, a club of investment funds and their corporate henchmen who maximise short-term profits and dividends over the best long-term interests of a corporation or there's personal greed from the corporation CEOs. It is a type of corporate asset stripping that's behind the fall from grace of our once loved national carrier. To dress this decision up as being in the national interest is misdirection and misinformation. Qantas is a private company whose actions are decided by leading shareholders First State, Vanguard and BlackRock. Others pulling the strings at Qantas are JP Morgan, HSBC, State Street, Goldman Sachs, and Citicorp, which explains a lot. The Qatari government fully owns Qatar Airways. There is nothing in this deal for the predatory billionaires that control Qantas. Was this the reason for the decision to block Qatar Airways' expansion? If so, who is really telling the Albanese government what to do? 16:00 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I've got four questions for the government. The first question is: what is the government doing to attract and retain more airlines and build confidence in Australia's aviation industry? The second question is: why has the government decided not to reinstate the ACCC's airline monitoring report, introduced by Josh Frydenberg, then treasurer, as part of the COVID response, which included 12 reports, the final report in June of this year? Why has the government not chosen to reinstate that ACCC report, which I would argue is a key protection for consumers and for competition? The third question is: why has the government chosen to sit idly by and not pursue any of those recommendations that are contained in those ACCC monitoring reports? The fourth question is: who is it that Anthony Albanese is listening to? It's clearly not his Labor Party colleagues in South Australia; he's turned his back on them. It's clearly not his Labor Party colleagues in Queensland; he's turned his back on them. And it's not even Wayne Swan, the former Labor treasurer and now national President of the Australian Labor Party. No, Prime Minister Albanese has turned his back on Wayne Swan, who has said this decision deserves to be reviewed. I would add to that that it deserves to be reviewed in public and not in private. Why is it that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese doesn't think he has to listen to the former chairman of the ACCC, Rod Sims, who said about the Qatar decision: I think it does hurt competition. He went on to say: … if there was a time to allow new entrants in, this is it. Why is it that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese thinks that he can turn his back on between $540 million and almost $800 million of economic activity? Why does Prime Minister Albanese think that he can turn his back on almost $500 million of tourism and hospitality activity? What is happening in the Prime Minister's head? What's happening in the Treasurer's head? We know what is happening in Andrew Leigh's head. Andrew Leigh— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Senator, I will remind you to use the correct titles of members from the other place. Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 My apologies. For those of you who aren't familiar with Mr Andrew Leigh, he is the Assistant Minister for Charities, Competition and Treasury, and guess what Andrew Leigh says. He says: 'Don't look at Australia. If you want to see a competitive aviation industry, look to Europe.' Andrew Leigh says to Australians— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x I will remind you to use the correct titles. Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 The assistant minister for competition, reporting to the Treasurer, Dr Chalmers, reporting to Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister, says, 'Don't look here.' Andrew Leigh says, 'I look to Europe'— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Senator, please resume your seat. I have asked you on a number of occasions. I know it's only Monday, but it's out of respect for people from that other place— An honourable senator interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Excuse me? Can I just continue, if you don't mind, Senator? I have been very patient and asked the senator—the good senator—to refer to people with their correct title, and he is assistant minister. Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Thank you very much, Madam Acting Deputy President. I accept your invitation absolutely. Mr Leigh, the assistant minister for competition, says: I look to Europe with its range of low-cost carriers and see what looks like an even more competitive ecosystem … Really? I thought the job of Mr Leigh, the assistant minister for competition, was to look after the aviation ecosystem in this country. But, no—he says: 'Don't look here. Look at Europe.' So the question still stands. With the ACCC having released its Airline competition in Australia report in June this year—which, I might add, exposed flight delays, flight cancellations, excessive profits and terrible experiences of customers—why won't the government continue to extend this particular monitoring regime for the protection of consumers and for the protection of competition? That would be a very, very simple first step. I would have thought Mr Leigh, the member for Fenner, would have come to work today, Monday, and said, 'Dr Chalmers, I've got an idea'— (Time expired) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x ( ): Senator Sheldon? Senator Canavan 245212 This will be good. 16:05 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Well, it will be good because we need to go through exactly what's happened with regard to aviation policy over these last many, many years. What we need to realise about those opposite is that when Ansett collapsed John Howard, the then Prime Minister, did nothing. He did absolutely nothing. Tens of thousands of jobs were lost in this country. Even when people were prepared to make a difference and stand up, with businesses and workers coming together, nothing was done. That's what happened. But let's just say, 'That was a horrible one-off tragedy,' because we saw what that did to the tourism industry and aviation markets right across the economy. But wait. What did those opposite do when they had their next opportunity? It's in their DNA to do nothing about supporting Australian aviation and nothing serious about making a difference in Australian aviation, and it's also in their DNA to make sure that we don't have the results that we need for the Australian tourism industry. What did they do when Virgin Airlines collapsed? They sat on their hands again, for the second time. For the two major crises that have happened in the aviation industry under those opposite's watch, they did nothing. They did nothing because they weren't concerned about the workforce, about the effect on the aviation industry or about the effect on the Australian economy. They just sat on their hands and said, 'By the bye.' Quite clearly, when you start making important decisions in the aviation industry, you need to be consistent. When you start making comments on the aviation industry, you need to be consistent. What those opposite did during the terrible crisis of COVID was give $2.7 billion to Qantas—you can't even say $2.7 billion quickly without it sounding like a hell of a lot of money because it was and it is. They imposed no obligations, no commitments and no requirements. What are the consequences? One is untrained staff, because staff were put off. Two point seven billion dollars was spent based on an ethical and moral obligation on Qantas to keep people employed. But people weren't kept employed. In fact, there are now 10,000 fewer people directly employed—well, 9,957. There are 1,700 workers in the High Court. When a government spends $2.7 billion, and workers get badly treated, it's an ethical question. Unfortunately, it's not a legal question; it's an ethical question. When you say to a company, 'You are supposed to keep those jobs,' it should keep to that commitment. But Qantas is also taking up a legal challenge in the High Court. On the ethical question, did those opposite say anything? Absolutely nothing. In fact, the only person who did speak up was the then Assistant Minister for Industrial Relations, Amanda Stoker, who blamed the workers for losing their jobs. She didn't blame Alan Joyce and she didn't blame Qantas. She didn't blame the then Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, and his government, who gave Qantas $2.7 billion with no obligations. No, she blamed the workforce. Those 1,700 people had spent decades working extraordinary nights, doing shift work and missing their families to make sure that the company they loved remained in the air and stayed safe. When those opposite come in here and talk about what's right and what's wrong in the aviation industry, there's a big picture—and let's look at the whole picture. They turned around and let Alan Joyce, Qantas and the board make this decision to run this airline into the ground. Those workers left and when we wanted to get back up into the air there were no workers to do the work. There were no trained workers to do it efficiently. There was no capacity to turn around and actually make sure that we had an airline which could do the work that was necessary. The circumstances that have occurred with this airline and around aviation are squarely at the feet of those opposite. They have to take responsibility for the challenges that are happening in the aviation industry. That's because $2.7 billion didn't do it—they never made it happen. Clearly, there are challenges forward in what we do with regard to Qantas. I want to see these people across the way support some of the announcements that were made in the House today, because that will help the workforce at Qantas and every other workforce like it which is being exploited. (Time expired) 16:10 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I rise to add my support to calls for increased competition in Australia's aviation sector, leading to lower prices and better protections for consumers. More broadly, clearly, we have an issue with competition in Australia. This is not just in aviation; if we look at the banks or supermarkets, there is a need for both sides of politics to take this seriously and to deliver the kinds of reforms that will ensure that Australians across the country get better services at more competitive prices. With international airfares currently 50 per cent more expensive than they were pre COVID, it's no surprise that Qantas posted a record $1.7 billion net profit. That is a huge amount of money. Here in the ACT, Qantas's slot-hoarding is a particular problem for Canberrans. Qantas cancelled 12 per cent of flights from Canberra to Sydney in July: 53 flights were cancelled out of Canberra Airport in the month of July, and cancellations have been hovering around that 50 mark. We have reports and ways to deal with this. We have the 2019 Productivity Commission inquiry which looked at slot-hoarding—the Harris review, which has been sitting on the desks of a number of ministers and still hasn't been implemented. It is clear that the government needs to reinstate ACCC flight-monitoring urgently. That found, previously, that the lack of effective competition over the last decade has resulted in underwhelming outcomes for consumers in terms of airfares, reliability of services and customer service. Above all, we need more transparency around the decision-making process from this government. 16:12 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I thought the government might heed the overwhelming calls over the weekend and at least take a step back from this disastrous Qatar Airways decision. I note that this morning the boss of Flight Centre was himself indicating there were rumours around the tourism industry. I suppose there was some false hope that the government might back down. We had the ALP national president, Wayne Swan, out there over the weekend, calling on the government to act and to review the decision and we've had the Labor state governments of Queensland and South Australia openly disagreeing with this decision on Qatar Airways. I thought that maybe the government would admit its mistake here, admit that it has made the wrong call and at least review the decision—at least suspend the decision and say, 'Okay, we're going to review it now, ask Qatar Airways to resubmit and we'll reconsider it all.' But no, they have been stubborn, the Labor Party in Canberra today. It's the first day back since this all blew up. They have been very stubborn—pigheaded even—that they're not going to listen to the tourism industry, they're not going to listen to their own national president and they're not going to listen to Labor state governments. They're going to continue to be in bed with one of the biggest companies in this country; they continue to do the bidding of a company that has trashed its reputation among the Australian people. Really, the only conclusion we can make right now is that our government, the Australian government, is in lockstep with Qantas. They're in lockstep with Qantas on the Voice, they're in lockstep with Qantas in wanting to keep your prices higher and how you fly and they won't have any truck with anyone about splitting this relationship between Mr Alan Joyce and Mr Anthony Albanese. It seems to be much stronger than many marriage in this country; they just don't seem able to be separated! They're in lockstep together here in support of overcharging Australian consumers and protecting themselves from competition. It is pretty hard to explain this decision. How can you explain a decision that seems to fly in the face of the recommendation from government departments? That is what we are told at least—that the government's own departments recommended the extra flights come in. It flies in the face of the evidence that international flight prices are now more than 50 per cent higher than they were before COVID. We clearly need more competition. We need to get those prices back down to, hopefully, a reasonable level for Australians. They have refused to do that in this case. It beggars belief how this decision has been made. On top of that, of course you have the embarrassing situation where the minister for infrastructure, Minister King, can't seem to explain the decision at all. She has gone through a black book of different excuses. She must have a Rolodex of excuses for her decision, including the absurd thing she originally said—that it was the human rights record of the Qatari government, even though Qantas partner with Emirates, which is a Gulf state with similar records on labour and all these issues. So why are Qantas and Emirates okay but Virgin and Qatar are apparently anathema? It didn't make any sense, so she hasn't repeated that, because that is absurd. She has moved on to saying it is because of the need to protect competition. Her own assistant minister, Stephen Jones, went out there saying it was because they want to keep Qantas's profits high. I thought we wanted to keep prices low for consumers but apparently this government is about big business and big profits, according to Minister Jones. That was what he had to say about it. There has been no logical explanation for this. And while it looks like the government want to support the motion today, I do hope that this chamber, the Senate, thinks that we need a bigger investigation in here on what the hell is happening with these decisions. As Senator Pocock mentioned, it is not just the decision here on the Qatari application; there is also the price-monitoring regime, which has been inexplicably finished and ended—terminated. There is also a decision on the slots at Sydney Airport sitting on the minister's desk. A review established by the former coalition government concluded almost a year ago. It reported to the minister a long time ago, sometime last year. We have not seen any movement here on the slots at Sydney Airport. That probably is one of the big reasons why we have had so many cancelled flights. I am sure we have all been affected by that. Australians have been affected by it. A massive number of flights have been cancelled and it looks like Qantas and, I should say, Virgin are gaming the slot situation in Sydney to keep their slots available and are not running the flights they said they would. The cancellation rate for Qantas, Jetstar and Virgin have all been eight per cent and above, whereas an airline like Rex, which does not have the same slot issue as them is running a cancellation rate of only 2.3 per cent. So the evidence is we need more competition. The government has denied the competition. They have not been able to explain that. We need to review this decision. The Senate should do that if the government will not, because we should be getting the cost of living down for Australians. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x The time for this discussion has expired. MATTERS OF URGENCY 67 MATTERS OF URGENCY Climate Change 67 16:18 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter, dated 4 September 2023 from Senator McKim. That the government has already approved five new coal projects this year despite the International Energy Agency's warning that we must immediately stop approving new coal projects if we are to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 16:18 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: This morning my home state of Queensland woke to the news that even though we are only at the start of September the Darling Downs, the Granite Belt, Maranoa and Warrego are facing catastrophic fire danger. The Bureau of Meteorology reports that temperatures are six to eight degrees above average today. Six to eight degrees above average is terrifying but what do we see from the Albanese government? The fifth new coal mine approved just last week. The Black Summer bushfires that devastated the eastern states started off much the same way in 2019. Back then the Greens moved for the parliament to declare a climate emergency and Labor voted with us. At the time, in opposition, Mr Albanese he said that Labor would set their emissions targets in accordance with the science. Well, how times have changed. While our planet is boiling, Labor's climate policies are undercooked. Australia's winter of 2023 was the warmest since official records began in 1910. In the northern hemisphere, July 2023 was the hottest month on record as heatwaves scorched Europe and North America, and Greece continues to battle wildfires. But back to the Australian environment minister: she's just approved a fifth new coal project in my home state of Queensland. It will run until 2073. I thought we were meant to be at net zero by 2050. That is another 50 years of coal when the science tells us we cannot open any new coal or gas mines. If we're going to stop the world going over the climate cliff, we cannot open a single new coal project, yet the Labor government have already approved five. Labor has over 100 coal and gas projects in the pipeline. Thanks to pressure from the Greens, we saw changes to the safeguard mechanism that make around half those projects unviable, and we will keep fighting to stop the rest. On top of the confetti of new coal approvals, Labor are continuing to budget for $11 billion of public money each year in subsidies to fossil fuel projects, in the form of cheap diesel and accelerated depreciation, including for carbon bombs like Middle Arm and Woodside's Scarborough gas project. They're also continuing to accept just under $1 million in political donations from the fossil fuel industry—in a totally unrelated coincidence! Labor's commitment to the bottom line of their major donors in the coal, oil and industry is unwavering. The temperature records keep rising, fire danger is catastrophic, and the so-called environment minister just keeps approving new coalmines. It is cooked. 16:21 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia That's an interesting contribution. Yes, we are looking at some pretty intense challenges across the world in terms of climate change, and let's be clear: we've had 10 years of no action—none whatsoever. But the Labor government have been crystal clear in our intentions. We have committed to and taken action on global warming after, as I say, 10 years of significant inaction, and we will continue to do so. But what we won't do is close down all fossil fuels overnight, because we have a plan to re-engineer our system rather than just destroy our economy and turn the lights out. There is another way, and that way is the way that we have chosen and that we intend to progress. Let's not forget that it was the Greens' action 10 years ago that actively stopped any progression on battling climate change. Just imagine how much better off we would be if there had been support back then and if Labor's climate action plans 10 years ago had got off the ground. Imagine how much better off we'd be now. But no. Here we are, starting from scratch. We have the coalition over there laughing at sea level rise in the Pacific, having failed to deliver any meaningful energy policies over that very long, dark stretch of their time in government. They enabled the stagnation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and did absolutely nothing on global warming. In just one year, the Albanese government has done more for the environment, more for energy, more for water and more on climate change than we saw in that entire decade. Obviously, it's not going to be enough for my colleagues in the Greens. They are very passionate about global warming, which is great. However, there's a balance here. We have to make that transition. This is about a transition, and it needs a plan. Blindly turning off every single system in the fossil fuel chain overnight would destroy our economy. So we need a balanced, planned approach, and that's exactly what the Albanese government has done. We started the process by looking at our emissions reductions. Senator Waters has referred to the safeguard mechanism, and we legislated that earlier this year. That has been our plan for a very long time, but when you're not in government you can't bring in those plans. We've just had to sit on the sidelines and watch the coalition government trash the country. So we have a plan, and that plan is what we are rolling out and have been rolling out for the last 14 or 15 months. We must support our economy and our environment, and our plan does just that. We've introduced a range of policies, not just the safeguard mechanism, to start reducing emissions from the highest emitters by 4.9 per cent every year. We've also legislated the emission reduction target of 43 per cent. We've doubled the rate of renewable energy approvals, because to get away from fossil fuels we need another source of energy and the renewable energy pathway is the one that is right for Australia. We've committed $2 billion for green hydrogen, another form of energy that will assist in dealing with global warming and assist in Australia turning itself into a renewable energy superpower. We've got $1.6 billion for home and small business electrification. We've got $20 billion for Rewiring the Nation. We have to get those renewables into our system so that our reliance on fossil fuels can decline. We have commenced the establishment of massive new offshore wind across the country and committed $3 billion to the National Reconstruction Fund. All these processes are the things that are going to take us to a much better place, to reduce our emissions and to do our bit. We know that the weather is getting more intense. We are in a world of pain here. We need a plan to move forward. The Albanese Labor government has that plan, and that plan is what we are going to roll out here—to the yawns of the Greens to my right. 16:26 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland What a load of twaddle from both the Greens and the government. This fantastical energy plan that is being rushed is resulting in greater expenditure and taxes and no connections. I have just spent two weeks in Western Australia where I saw extraordinarily bad outcomes for resources companies. They have had to step in because of the government's failure to have any plan at all. The Greens have come up with this urgency motion. They continue to make up numbers in this sector while ignoring the fact that it does continue to provide our energy security. The lesson of the past few months is that energy security equals national security for all Australians. It's funny, however, that the Greens reference the IEA and continue to pick out the numbers that suit their radical agenda. Coal and gas remain necessities for energy production both in Australia and right around the world. The International Energy Agency's World energy outlook projects that total global oil, coal and gas demand will grow. In fact, the IEA confirms that coal and gas will remain an important part of the world's energy mix decades into the future, with coal remaining the single-largest source of energy in 2040. That means that coal and gas will play a vital role in Australia's energy mix for the foreseeable future. We can see in South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales the emerging issue of energy supply security and affordability. All three states are expected to have energy shortfalls over the next three years. AEMO is warning of blackouts and brownouts over this summer, which is a burning issue, as reliable power is turned off without proper planning from this government. Coal-fired power makes up 75 per cent of our average national electricity generation and gas makes up 16 per cent of that generation and is a vital firming source in winter. We simply cannot afford to cut out new coal and gas developments. Australia has a choice. Do we adopt the European model of outsourcing our energy needs or do we adopt the US model and become an energy independent nation, using our own reserves? Continuing energy shortages and spiralling energy costs are the result of policies forcing out reliable and affordable energy in favour of intermittent energy sources. That's what the Greens want to foist on Australian households and businesses—soaring energy costs and unreliable supply. Australia's high-quality coal and gas will play an important role, not only domestically but in other countries around the world. That is why the coalition is committed to supporting our coal and gas industries to supply Australia's high-quality resources to export markets to help lift millions out of poverty, as well as to provide cheap, reliable electricity to industry and families across Australia. Australian coal is some of the highest quality coal in the world. We produce it more efficiently than most, meaning more energy and fewer emissions. That puts our coal and gas sectors and the thousands of Australians who work in them in prime position to benefit from the increased global demand for energy resources. As China and India increase their demand for coal and gas, for both steel creation and energy generation, and as Japan and Korea demand more gas to fuel their transitions, it is in everyone's interest that Australia's high-quality resources are the first choice for our partners around the world. Our failure to meet those demands—to refuse to step up and be responsible—will mean those countries that need our resources turn to lower-quality, higher-emitting resources from other countries. Pause to think on that for a second, Madam Acting Deputy President. When Australia stops exporting its high-quality coal and gas, higher emissions around the world are the result. If Australia steps back, world emissions rise, and that is a bad outcome in anybody's mind. As the middle class continues to grow, Australia's energy resources will enable people from countries in Africa and Asia to lift themselves out of poverty, unlike what's happening in Australia. It's not the Greens who stress over rising electricity bills; it's mums and dads trying to balance the household budget and figure out how to survive. 16:31 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory It's very interesting to hear from the government about the transition. I'd like to point out that when you transition you're actually moving away from something. The government are moving towards it. They are talking about transition while they expand the fossil fuel industry. This is now vandalism. They know what they are doing. They are destroying our future for the short-term profits of a fossil fuel industry who are not good-faith actors in this. The industry are betting on us not taking the climate action necessary to secure a safe future. It is now the extremists that are demanding that we continue to expand the fossil fuel industry, that are giving subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, like the $1.5 billion for Middle Arm, to open up the Beetaloo. I have a real concern about what this is going to look like as we go forward, because currently fossil fuel companies are making bank. They are making record profits. Whilst making record profits, like at Whitehaven's Maules Creek coalmine, they're stealing water. They admitted to stealing a billion litres of water in the last drought, and they were outbidding local farmers for the water that was for sale. They're saying it's too expensive to recycle their tyres, so they're getting alterations to their licences so they can bury them onsite. Apparently, the $1.7 billion profit made by Whitehaven in the last year isn't enough to recycle tyres, so they say: 'Let's just bury them. That's someone else's problem. We're going to leave this massive hole when we go, and buried somewhere down there will be some tyres.' The next issue we're going to have to deal with is how we ensure that the major parties are taking this seriously. 16:33 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia Well, here we are again. It's another hypocritical climate change motion from the Greens. They're all about the action on climate change and the environment when it suits their political purpose and TikTok accounts, but when push comes to shove they haven't got a clue. Never forget that it was the Greens who sided with the 'no-alition' in 2009 to vote down the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. I really don't know why the Greens come in here pointing the finger after they helped instigate almost a decade of climate policy failure. I've said it once and I'll say it again: the Albanese government won't be lectured to on climate policies by the Greens. While the Greens continue to do what they do best—that is, be a roadblock to positive reform—the government will get on with the job. As the youngest person in this debate, I understand the critical importance of strong climate policy. I know it's what's needed to ensure a sustainable Australia for my generation and for those to come, and I'm proud that this Albanese Labor government is taking action. The Greens obviously have a hard time understanding good policy, so let me spell it out for them. One of the first acts of the Albanese government was to legislate a climate target. In doing so we enshrined into law a reduction in emissions of 43 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030 and net zero by 2050. This is bolstered by our safeguard mechanism, which will apply to all large facilities that have more than 100,000 tons of emissions each year. I also note that Minister Plibersek was the first environment minister in Australian history to reject a coal project, and the minister will continue to exercise her responsibilities under the legislation and consider the merits of each application on a case-by-case basis. Make no mistake: it is the Labor government that is driving Australia's transition to renewable energy. But thanks to the noalition and the not-so-Greens, we're further behind than we should be. Those opposite refused to act on climate change for a decade. They've repealed climate laws, laughed at rising sea levels in the Pacific and announced 22—yes, 22—different energy policies, but landed none. Overturning almost a decade of climate policy failure is not easy, but we're on the right track. The Albanese government has doubled the number of renewable energy approvals, and we now have a record of 104 renewable projects in the pipeline. In addition, we've committed to $2 billion for green hydrogen, $1.6 billion for home and small business electrification, $20 billion for Rewiring the Nation, and $3 billion for renewables and low-emission technologies as part of the National Reconstruction Fund. We've also set up a new environmental protection agency, established a massive new offshore wind project around the country, proclaimed 10 new Indigenous protected areas, legislated the nature repair market, passed stronger laws to protect the ozone layer, and funded 57 plastic recycling facilities. But, above all, we've set a clear path for net zero by 2050 without compromising the economy. Despite this government's record achievements and the fact that the Greens enabled those opposite to launch a decade of climate chaos, they still have the audacity to come in here and point the finger at Labor and post it on TikTok. If Senator McKim wants to blame someone on his social media for climate inaction, he should just post a selfie. Seriously, calling yourself the Greens is beginning to look like false advertising. If the Greens really cared about the climate and the environment they would put an end to those cheap political stunts and get out of the way of positive and progressive reforms. 16:38 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Labor are a bunch of reckless hypocrites on climate. Environment minister Tanya Plibersek has now signed off on five new coal projects. If we are to avert a climate collapse, there can be no new coal or gas. The science is crystal clear on that. Yet here we are. People tell me they had hope when we kicked out the climate criminals that are the Liberal-National coalition. People tell me they had hope that bold action on climate change would happen, hope that finally Labor would step up and bring some ambition to the table and act decisively as they had promised. Yet here we are. This is a gutless Labor government, more fearful of losing their fossil fuel donations than they are of the climate emergency that we are in. Well, the last election was a climate election, and we won—the climate won—because there are more parliamentarians here who want strong action on climate than ever before. Yet here we are. Every single coal project that you approve hurtles as faster into a future where people and the planet will suffer beyond measure. We are boiling and burning, for heaven's sake. Labor is in government. Stop whingeing about the past and take some action now. July was the hottest month ever recorded on the planet. The wildfires in Canada have burned 15 million hectares of forest. We've just had the hottest winter on record in Australia. Yet the environment minister is approving new coal. Shame on Labor for trying to greenwash their climate inaction by seeking Pacific nations' support to host COP 31. Water is lapping at their doorstops. There is a hunger crisis in Africa. Glaciers are melting in Pakistan. Wake up! No more new coal and gas. 16:40 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland This Greens motion complains that the government has approved five new coal projects this year, yet the government is not approving enough coal projects. We need to get these mines rolling. Australia need this government to approve coal-fired power stations. The Greens like to cherry-pick, so let's look at what else the International Energy Agency said in July: Coal consumption in 2022 rose by 3.3% to 8.3 billion tonnes, setting a new record— a new world record. So much for the death of coal. Instead the Greens would have Australia miss out on the tax revenue from this boom, which funds our hospitals, roads and schools and saved our economy in the last budget. It's always important to debunk the myth of cheap wind and solar in these debates. Today we have the highest proportion ever of wind, solar and batteries in the grid—more accurately known as unreliables, not renewables. Just ask any Australian. These are facts. Our power bills have never been higher. While the government sits on its hands about nuclear, building cheap, coal-fired power is the only solution we have for the cost-of-living crisis. The UN net zero pipe dream is already sending Australians broke and, if we don't stop it now, the UN net zero nightmare will send the entire country broke. Unreliables have increased to only 36 per cent of Australia's electricity needs, and look at the damage they're already doing. If you think it's bad now, this government wanted to get it to 82 per cent in 2030. That's madness. Meanwhile, as Australia annually mines 560 million tonnes of coal, China produces 4.5 billion tonnes, almost nine times as much, and on top of that China imports additional coal from us. I congratulate the government on approving some coal projects and criticise them for not approving more. Before we all go broke, Australia needs more mines so we have coal on the ground, on ships, in power stations and in steam wheels, serving humanity. 16:42 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Another day, another coalmine approved by the Labor Minister for the Environment and Water. It's extremely disappointing to see this government, who came into power off the back of a climate election, an environment minister who hand on heart says this is the moment she is going to take to save and look after the environment, day after day after day, every time there's a coalmine on her desk for approval, giving it a great big tick. Every time the environment minister approves a new coalmine, an expansion of a mine or a new gas well, every time the environment minister approves new coal or a new mine, it makes it harder to save the Murray River. Every time environment minister gives the tick to a new coalmine, it makes it harder to save the Great Barrier Reef. Every time the environment minister gives the tick of approval for expanding coal and gas, the threat of Australia's bushfires grows worse. We are heading into another dry, hot season. Australians are already terrified of what this summer will bring. Rather than doing everything possible to stop making the climate crisis worse, to stop fuelling these climate fires, the environment minister is giving her big tick to new coal and gas. Our environment laws are broken. The whole point of the environment minister is to protect and stand up for the environment, and yet here we have the environment minister doing the work of the big coal and gas companies and giving them approval time after time after time. I know that so many on this side of the government wish that wasn't happening. They know it's wrong, but they are fearful of change. It is time to understand, to listen to the scientists, to heed the advice of the world's energy organisations. We can't get the climate crisis under control while we keep making the situation worse. Over and over again, the experts tell us that politicians must stop expanding the fossil fuel industry. It is time to stop pouring fuel on the fire. We need the transition and we need to start protecting our environment. 16:45 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria If Australia stops approving new coal projects, we will not change the weather—far from it. Of what benefit is the blind pursuit of net zero if it destroys jobs, reduces state and federal government revenue, devastates country towns and lowers our quality of life? The mining industry, overall, generated $455 billion of export revenue last year. That is almost two-thirds of all export revenue for our nation. How would we pay for the NDIS? How would we pay for social security? How are we going to fill the budget black hole? You can't pay the bills with virtue, unfortunately, because if you could, we'd be paying for it many times over, from what I have heard from the people opposite. If the Greens get their way we will all be broke and, unfortunately, we'll all be living in the dark. Thank you. 16:46 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland As I rise to speak to this matter of public urgency the southern part of my home state of Queensland is on a catastrophic bushfire alert. 'Catastrophic' is the highest level of warning that can be issued by the Queensland Fire and Emergency Services in anticipation of uncontrollable fires. Twenty-one aircraft as well as firefighters across the state are on standby, and firefighters have this morning been battling a grassfire on the Southern Downs. Just last year, Brisbane saw its second once-in-a-century flood in the space of a few years. For decades, scientists have warned us of the dire consequences of the continued burning of fossil fuels, with successive Labor and coalition governments pushing off the necessary action into the never-never. We have crossed over from global warming into global boiling. The opening of new coal projects is nothing less than genocidal. The Albanese government is co-signing destruction while swanning about in Rio Tinto merchandise. We should be throwing the kitchen sink at this before we get to the non-stop catastrophic extreme events, before we get to the permanent destruction of our biodiversity and before we get to the loss of millions of lives. Yes, we should be throwing the kitchen sink at this, but instead, the Labor government is continuing to pour fuel on the fire. The fringe-dwelling deniers are easy to ignore, but we can't excuse those who know better—those who have seen the impacts of climate catastrophes and yet have decided to back-in the opening of more coal mines. Every new coal mine is a nail in our collective coffins, and that is unconscionable. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 The question is that the motion moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [16:52]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator McGrath)

 11 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 24 NOES Ayres, T. Babet, R. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hughes, H. A. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McGrath, J. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 72 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report No. 4 of 2023-24 72 16:55 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria ():  In respect of Auditor-General's report No. 4 of 2023-24, Performance audit: accuracy and timeliness of welfare payments, I move: That the Senate take note of the document. The Auditor-General's investigation looked into the effectiveness of the management by the Department of Social Services and Services Australia of the accuracy and timeliness of income support payments, and, unsurprisingly, the report revealed that Services Australia has been only partly effective at doing either. According to the Audit Office, nearly one in five of those receiving income support payments are being paid incorrectly, and one in four claims were not processed within the agency's own deadlines. Despite the clear errors in Services Australia's systems, Services Australia reported that it had accurately paid people receiving income support 98.9 per cent of the time. However, the Auditor-General found that this rate was in fact only 81.4 per cent, rather a considerable difference. So not only is Services Australia failing in its responsibility to manage income support payments in a timely and accurate manner, but it's also fudging its monitoring and evaluation to give itself a pat on the back. This is completely unacceptable. People on income support are barely scraping by on poverty payments. Many of these people have illnesses, injuries or disabilities that prevent them from working, and they rely on income support payments to survive. They need their payments to be accurately made to them in a timely manner by our government agencies. Our Social Security system is supposed to be a robust safety net. It's supposed to provide people with financial aid when they find themselves suddenly without an income. It is supposed to give people assistance in a timely and accurate manner when they need it. Instead, over the last month, we have heard report after report of Australia's social security system failing people on all counts. Last Monday, the Commonwealth Ombudsman released a report detailing how Services Australia's poor IT systems had resulted in errors in nearly 48,000 child support assessments, and earlier in August the Ombudsman also reported that up to 100,000 Centrelink debts or potential debts had been miscalculated over the last 20 years due to unlawful practices used by Services Australia and the Department of Social Services. These mistakes that the department makes have real impact on people's lives. When people don't get their payments, they don't eat. When people don't get their payments, they can't afford to go and see their doctor. When people don't get their payments, they can't afford their medications, they can't afford to pay the rent, and they are living under constant financial stress that is really sending people's mental health over the edge in so many circumstances. The recent evidence has come in the wake of the robodebt royal commission report. Of course, we know the robodebt scheme was one of the darkest chapters of Australia's social security system, causing devastating emotional and psychological harm to people across the country and costing Australia over $1 billion. Commissioner Holmes's scathing and thorough review of robodebt highlighted the inhumane actions and lack of accountability from the government. Robodebt, the Auditor's report and the Commonwealth Ombudsman's findings reveal a pattern of failing Social security systems in this country. So our Labor government, who claim to not want to leave people behind, can no longer stand idle and let our social services safety net decay any further. Our Social Security system needs urgent and drastic change. So, in the light of yet another report, I am urgently calling on the government to immediately raise the rate of all income support payments above the poverty line, to $88 a day; to abolish punitive mutual obligations and all other punitive measures of our social security system; and to immediately suspend all social security debt recovery to ensure that the harm of robodebt is not repeated. Poverty is a political choice, and we are a better country than to have a system that leaves people trapped and mired in poverty. At the moment it is Labor's choice to keep people in poverty and to keep our social security system broken. We have to do better; people's lives and people's wellbeing depend on it. There are so many people who are suffering so much and there are actions that this government can take; there are choices being made and I plead with the government to please make the right choices and mend our social security safety net. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. DOCUMENTS 73 DOCUMENTS Consideration 73 Makarrata Commission, Department of the Treasury 73 Order for the Production of Documents 73 17:01 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I table documents relating to order for the production of documents concerning the Makarrata Commission and ASIC. BILLS 73 BILLS Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2023, Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Safety Net) Bill 2023, National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023, Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023, Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill 2023, Inspector-General of Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023, Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) Amendment (Strengthening Land and Governance Provisions) Bill 2022, Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Amendment (Disclosure of Information) Bill 2023, Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Dental Patients and Other Measures) Bill 2023, Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Amendment Bill 2023, Trade Support Loans Amendment Bill 2023 73

Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2023

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

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

Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023

Inspector-General of Aged Care Bill 2023

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

Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) Amendment (Strengthening Land and Governance Provisions) Bill 2022

Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Amendment (Disclosure of Information) Bill 2023

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

Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Amendment Bill 2023

Trade Support Loans Amendment Bill 2023

Assent 73 BUDGET 73 BUDGET Consideration by Estimates Committees 73 17:02 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia On behalf of the Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Senator Green, I present the report of the committee in respect of the 2023-24 budget estimates, together with accompanying documents. COMMITTEES 73 COMMITTEES Economics Legislation Committee 73 Report 73 17:03 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia On behalf of the Chair of the Economics Legislation Committee, I present the report of the committee on the Digital Assets (Market Regulation) Bill 2023, together with accompanying documents. Finance and Public Administration References Committee 74 Reference 74 17:06 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I will be supporting this reference today. It is important that we take a look at the situation in relation to land councils. They serve an incredibly important purpose, particularly across Indigenous communities, and they really are there for the empowerment of local people. Yes, there are some questions that need to be answered and of course the Senate committee is the appropriate place for that to occur, for those questions to be put and for a thorough investigation to be had into the affairs of land councils. I've spent, as you would know, Mr Acting Deputy President McGrath, lots of time across Indigenous communities and across Australia. Long before I came here to this place, I spent 10 years working across Indigenous affairs, namely in economic empowerment, particularly employment. There are some fantastic examples, particularly across the Pilbara, where organisations and land councils are doing some fantastic economic empowerment work across their communities and using the proceeds and funds that they get from the Indigenous land use arrangements that they have with mining companies and resource companies. They are seeing some tremendous impacts and benefits back to their own communities. But there are, sadly, cases, or at least accusations and circumstances, where that is not occurring. We hear of audits not occurring within the time frames they are required to be undertaken. Some of them go on for years and years and years. How that could happen is beyond me. I have, as I said, a lot of experience across the employment space, not so much in the native title area. But I think this is an issue that this Senate's relevant committee should take a look at because we know that the money's not always going out onto the ground where it is desperately needed, and the biggest problem we have is a lack of accountability. If we're truly going to end the disparity that exists between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, the most important feature that needs to occur is a mixture of accountability and responsibility. That is the way to address the challenges and the issues that are occurring on the ground. So I think this reference to this committee is important. It is something that we should be looking at. I want to encourage all my colleagues here to allow this reference to go ahead so that this committee can look at these very serious issues that are occurring on the ground. 17:10 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia The government does not support this referral to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee. It is a committee of which I am a member. I note that those opposite have now tried a number of times to refer the Northern Land Council and other land councils to this committee. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Sorry to interrupt you, Senator Pratt, but I'm afraid you've already spoken in this debate, so I'm going to have to cut you off there. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion moved by Senator Liddle and amended by Senator Thorpe be agreed to.  

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

 27 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. 30 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Faruqi, M. Green, N. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. (Teller) Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Environment and Communications References Committee 75 Reference 75 17:19 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I'd like to make a contribution on this motion to refer a matter to the Environment and Communications References Committee, particularly given the passing of three weeks since we started the debate on this. I seriously urge both the opposition and those on the crossbench to reconsider their stated position in relation to this motion. I appreciate the contribution of Minister Watt and Senator Payman in relation to the concerns that they both expressed in relation to what is effectively a home invasion. I agree with everything they said right up to the point where they said they wouldn't support the motion. This is a really important matter. Those of us who read the initial statement from the ABC could see through the wording in that statement when it said that they had no knowledge of what action was going to occur there. They went on to say that they had attended the protest action to gather material for a potential report later this year. Clearly that Four Corners crew had some knowledge of the type of activity that was going to occur. I'm not sure when they were called out what they expected to find in a residential area of Perth other than a residence. It's wonderful that there just happened to be an ABC Four Corners crew available at 6.30 in the morning to attend a location. They just happened to be in town; they just happened to be there. Unfortunately, what we've subsequently learnt through a statement by Managing Director David Anderson is that when the initial ABC statement in relation to the Woodside protest action was released they didn't tell us the truth. The subsequent statement admits that. The ABC promotes to us the Four Corners crew as the hardest-hitting, most informative, cutting-edge news team in the country. I have to say that Four Corners does have a very strong reputation, which has been built up over many years, but this action diminishes that. Since we started debating this reference three weeks have passed. Quite frankly, I reckon the ABC has had three weeks to get its act in order to conduct its inquiries, and now it's the turn of the Senate. I'm not sure what the government thinks or the crossbench think, but I know my colleagues on this side want to ask questions of the ABC that we want answered. We're not interested in the questions that the ABC wants to ask itself in its own inquiry. We think that this is a matter of such importance that this chamber should have the opportunity to conduct an inquiry. The ABC have had three weeks. They've had long enough. I urge the government, the Greens and the rest of the crossbench to reconsider their stated position because, quite frankly, for the ABC time is up. You've had three weeks. You've admitted through the managing director that you didn't tell us the truth in your first statement—and I commend the managing director for doing that. You didn't tell us the whole story. You've admitted that you knew what was likely to be going on. And you've admitted that you're building a story on protest action. What concerns me is the other sorts of crazy protest that will be incited by the process that's now understood by the protest movement, that the ABC will turn up to these sorts of protests. And we should stop calling them protests. This was a home invasion. You went to somebody's home. You went to somebody's private residence. It ceased to be a matter of protest immediately it became a home invasion. The ABC and the government and the crossbench are now protecting home invaders. That's what's happening here. On what basis should the government be protecting home invaders? The ABC were participants in this process. They knew the type of action that was going to happen. They just happened to have a film crew available at 6.30 in the morning? I mean, seriously; of course this was coordinated. Anybody who can read a media statement could read it in the initial media statement from the ABC. It was not as they claimed it was when they made their initial statement. It wasn't, and that has since been admitted by the ABC managing director, David Anderson. I give credit to him for at least making the admission, but you've had three weeks to investigate this now. The government and the Greens can't run a protection racket for home invaders, and that's what they're doing. You went to somebody's home. I would say this if it was Sarah Hanson-Young's place. I would want to protect her home as much as they would anybody else's. I would even protect Senator Watt's place— Senator COLBECK 00AOL and, Senator Pratt, I would protect yours—and yours too, Senator McKim. Senator COLBECK 00AOL I don't care which media outlet it is. They shouldn't be turning up to cover a home invasion. Honourable senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Order! Interjections are disorderly. Senator COLBECK 00AOL On what basis are we doing that? Where is the line? Senator COLBECK 00AOL Senator Pratt, you've had three weeks. We listened to you, last time round. You've had three weeks for the ABC to run its investigation. I reckon that's pretty fair. We have since learnt that we were lied to by the ABC in their initial statement. They didn't tell us the whole truth. So it's about time the Senate got to ask its questions, not the questions that the ABC decides it wants to ask for itself. You went to somebody's home. It's a home invasion. It's not just an industrial protest. We all get that. Senators on this side of protect and believe in the right to protest, but you went to somebody's home, Senator McKim. Just because it's somebody who works in the mining industry, the Greens think that this is justified. That is an absolute disgrace. What about the kids who were in the household? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Order! Senator Hanson-Young? Senator Hanson-Young I0U A point of order: misleading this chamber. Senator Colbeck, you may not have been in here when this debate first started, but I clearly put on the record that the Greens do not support protest in people's homes, and I would like you to reflect upon that. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 That was a debating point, Senator Hanson-Young. Senator Pratt, are you on the same point? Senator Pratt I0T A different point of order: Senator Colbeck said, 'You invaded people's homes,' which is just obviously not true. Senator Hughes 273828 Check the Hansard. Senator Pratt I0T No, I did check—if you had listened. I ask that he desist, because that is clearly out of order and unparliamentary. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Thank you, Senator Pratt. Senator Colbeck, you have the call. Senator COLBECK 00AOL I withdraw any imputation about colleagues in this chamber with respect to the home invasion. I acknowledge Senator Hanson-Young did mention it, and I sat through the entire debate in the last time around and listened to all the lame excuses from the other side as to why this couldn't occur. I accept that Senator Hanson-Young did acknowledge that people's houses should be out of bounds, but that's why I'm so bloody cheesed off about this. They went to somebody's home. I'd be equally cheesed off if it was your home, Senator Hanson Young. None of us—nobody in public life, nobody in commercial life—deserves this. Nobody deserves this. The ABC's had three weeks. The ABC has had three weeks to complete this investigation. They've admitted they didn't give us the full story at the outset. They've admitted that, and I acknowledge Mr Anderson for doing so, but time's up. The Senate should be given the opportunity to ask its questions, not the ones that the internal ABC investigators want to ask themselves. Imagine, if this was a mining company investigating itself, what we would be hearing from across the chamber. What would we be hearing? Some consistency of argument would be the thing that I'm talking about: consistency of argument, consistency of process. The ABC's had three weeks. The government and the Greens should reconsider their position. We all agree—Senator Watt, Senator Payman, Senator Hanson-Young and, I'm assuming, Senator McKim—that people's homes are out of bounds. We all think that. We all agree with that. So let this chamber ask its questions. That's what this motion seeks to do. Let's stand up for the things that we actually believe in: protecting people's homes and their families from these activities, which are starting to get out of hand and become home invasions. I genuinely and sincerely think the government and the Greens should reconsider their position on this. I genuinely believe that. These people went to somebody's home. They had been casing the place out for two nights. They were emboldened by the fact that they knew they would get an ABC Four Corners news crew there. We need to play our part in making sure that this sort of activity doesn't re-occur. I genuinely don't understand how in good conscience this chamber can say no to asking these questions. I genuinely don't understand it, because it's absolutely outrageous that the ABC through this process was effectively party to home invasion. It shouldn't happen. Get news, get protests, get all of that, but we need to be able to ask the questions that we want to ask and we should be doing everything that we possibly can, as we have agreed across the chamber. This protection of our private homes should apply in that context everywhere. It's not about the Coalition. It's not about the Greens. It's not about crossbench. It's not about Labor in government. This is about protecting people's homes from action that should not occur and ensuring that important government institutions which are trusted by Australians to report are not drawn into that process and don't incite that process. So the government and the Greens should genuinely reconsider their vote on this. It would it would be an absolute indictment on them both if they didn't. 17:34 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move: That the question now be put. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 The question is that the question now be put.  

The Senate divided. [17:39]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Chandler)

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

Question agreed to.

 17:46 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 3 be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [17:46]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Chandler)

 24 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. 32 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 BILLS 79 BILLS Export Control Amendment (Streamlining Administrative Processes) Bill 2022 79

Export Control Amendment (Streamlining Administrative Processes) Bill 2022

Second Reading 79 17:49 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales As I was saying before debate was suspended, it is pleasing to see that the Labor government have finally brought in a bill and measures that will actually have positive outcomes for our agricultural industries, which provide such an important role in our export markets and underpin our economy. As I was pointing out, when we were in government, the Liberals and the Nationals undertook a lot of programs to expand our agricultural market access, to create new markets for agricultural industries, to support agricultural and export entrepreneurs to establish their businesses, to seek out markets, and to do that very important fundamental work that we have progressed. This bill will help streamline the red tape that is currently costing our export businesses. By reducing red tape, by streamlining processes and by making market information more accessible when it's needed instead of creating delays, we will be able to be that export producer of first preference. This will be of benefit to our many trusted and valued export partners that we work with across the board. I highlighted earlier in my speech the fact that Labor have made life in the regions very difficult. They have created a lot of impediments in a lot of our agricultural industries. We have seen the negative outcomes from things like offset provisions which mean that, particularly in Western Australia, we are seeing agricultural land bought up and planted to trees rather than being kept in production. We are seeing proposed changes to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan to allow more water to be stripped from agricultural industries, which harms and damages not only those irrigation-dependent communities but also our export produce. I highlight as one key example our rice industry, which feeds about 50 million people per year. We have the largest rice mill in the Southern Hemisphere in my hometown of Deniliquin, which produces and packages rice purely for export. But by stripping water out of the consumptive pool, you put at risk that whole industry, that whole mill and milling operation, and the customers that purchase that rice. That rice goes throughout the Asia-Pacific region, and rice is a staple. We need to really look at all of the policies that are brought forward by this government and the impacts and flow-on impacts they have. We will be monitoring the implementation of this bill as it goes forward to make sure that it is actually achieving the goal of reducing red tape, streamlining processes and making market access better, more efficient and easier. We will monitor it, but we do thank the government for bringing forward this bill. We will be supporting this bill in this chamber. On that note, I thank you for the opportunity. 17:54 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I certainly appreciate the comments on this bill and I thank all members for their contribution to this debate. The Export Control Amendment (Streamlining Administrative Processes) Bill 2022 will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the export control legislation by streamlining the administrative processes for information management and making other amendments to improve administration of the act. It will reduce administrative burden for industry, the department and other stakeholders, and it will ensure that our export legislation is fit for purpose and responsive to stakeholder needs. It will allow for information to be shared more expediently with importing countries and other government departments in appropriate circumstances. This, in turn, will enhance our ability to use export and trade intelligence to build and sustain our international market presence. The bill supports appropriate sharing of relevant information whilst ensuring that information that could cause harm is protected. This is consistent with the broader information-sharing reform work being considered across different portfolios. I thank the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills for their consideration of this bill and welcome the joint committee's comments around the safeguards protecting the right to privacy under the bill. Following consideration of the joint committee's observations, I have included further information in the explanatory materials to provide greater clarity about the protections for personal information in relation to the bill and to describe how the safeguards will work in practice. This will provide additional assurance that these safeguards are sufficient to ensure that any limitation on the right to privacy will be proportionate in practice. The bill supports key agricultural policy initiatives, such as the Busting Congestion for Agricultural Exporters initiative, to reduce red tape and streamline processes for Australian exporters. The bill will also make minor but important amendments to simplify processes and improve effective administration of the act. These changes contribute to a modern, future-looking export regulatory system that can support the growth of Australian agricultural exports in existing and new markets. I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to this bill. The addendum responds to matters raised by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. (Quorum formed) In Committee 80 18:00 The TEMPORARY CHAIR 264449 The question is that the bill stand as printed. Question agreed to. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendments; report adopted. Third Reading 80 18:01 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (Modernising Business Communications and Other Measures) Bill 2023 80

Treasury Laws Amendment (Modernising Business Communications and Other Measures) Bill 2023

Second Reading 80 18:01 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Modernising Business Communications and Other Measures) Bill 2023. The coalition will be supporting this legislation. This legislation implements reforms led by the former coalition government that reduce red tape, lower the cost of doing business and support digital innovation in the delivery of core business functions. This bill reintroduces measures advanced before the election to modernise annual general meetings and other business communication rules and provides an initial response to the Australian Law Reform Commission's review into financial services legislation. This bill revives and expands legislation that was introduced prior to the last election. The main body of additions to the bill implement initial recommendations from the Australian Law Reform Commission's review into financial services legislation, commissioned by the previous coalition government. The bill implements law improvement measures across four streams: technology neutral communications in schedule 1, recommendations of the ALRC in schedule 2, the rationalisation of ASIC instruments in schedule 3 and minor and technical amendments in schedule 4. The amendments in schedules 2 to 4 are largely made with existing policy parameters. Schedule 1 to the bill amends the Corporations Act and other Commonwealth acts to modernise communication methods available to consumers, businesses and regulators when interacting with each other by extending the global communications regime, allowing members of certain entities to elect to receive documents in either hard copy or electronic form and providing relief to entities that are unable to contact members under the Corporations Act; ensuring that regulatory bodies and the Treasury portfolio can hold hearings and examinations using technology; updating payment provisions in Treasury laws to allow electronic payments to be used; and, finally, replacing requirements in Treasury laws to publish notices in newspapers with a requirement that notices be published in an accessible and reasonably prominent matter. Schedule 2 to the bill implements recommendations and other suggested improvements identified by the ALRC in its first interim report to simplify and improve the navigability of Australia's financial services laws. In an interim report, the ALRC found that Australia's financial services legislation is challenging to navigate and complex for individuals and businesses who may have obligations under the law. Schedule 3 to the bill amends the Corporations Act and the National Consumer Credit Protection Act to transfer long-standing and accepted matters currently contained in ASIC legislative instruments into the primary law. The amendments will improve navigability of the law and provide industry and consumers with greater certainty and clarity when interacting with Treasury. Schedule 4 to the bill makes a number of miscellaneous and technical amendments to Treasury portfolio legislation. The amendments correct drafting errors repealing operative provisions, address unintended outcomes and make other technical changes. Combined with further reforms of the coalition, this bill is expected to reduce the regulatory burden for businesses by more than $500 million per year. Independent research has estimated that the annual cost to the economy of red tape is at $176 billion a year. Red tape's costs to the economy are more than just the direct cost; of course it includes businesses that have never started, jobs that are never created, and the ambitions that are never fulfilled because of bureaucratic interference. Many businesses you talk to will tell you that the cost and burden of compliance is, along with staff shortages, their No. 1 issue. This project is no small task, with the Treasury portfolio laws covering more than 50 acts that contain thousands of provisions, spanning corporations law, taxation, competition and consumer policy, and financial sector regulation. This needs to be the beginning, not the end, of reducing red tape and supporting deregulation for Australian businesses. 18:05 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania The Greens will be supporting the Treasury Laws Amendment (Modernising Business Communications and Other Measures) Bill 2023, so what I want to do in my second reading contribution is basically foreshadow the amendment to this legislation that we intend to move. It's the amendment on sheet 1796, which has been circulated in the chamber and is standing in my name. That amendment would repeal changes made by the previous government two years ago that weakened Australia's continuous disclosure laws and weakened Australia's misleading and deceptive conduct provisions. Under the pre-COVID continuous disclosure regime, which was introduced by the Howard government in 2001, companies and directors were required to disclose publicly any information that was not generally available and that a reasonable person would expect to have a material effect on a company's share price. If a company or company director failed to comply with these obligations, they could face a civil penalty action either by shareholders or by ASIC. However, a director was not liable for a civil penalty proceeding for breaching those obligations if he or she took all reasonable steps to ensure that the company complied with its disclosure obligations and, after taking those reasonable steps, believed that the company was complying with its obligations. But, as a result of the changes made by the previous government, the situation now is that companies and directors that failed to disclose price-sensitive information, either at all or in a timely fashion, are liable to shareholders for that failure only if the company or director acted with knowledge, recklessness or negligence. That means it's now easier for companies and directors to get away with failing to provide price-sensitive information to the market. It means it's now easier for companies and directors to get away with withholding information from or providing misleading information to the market and shareholders. The only reason given by the previous government for the changes it made was the asserted need to protect Australian companies and directors from the risk of opportunistic class actions. The changes made by the previous government put the interests of individual company directors above the interests of mum and dad investors. Even then, not all business organisations supported these changes. In a 2020 survey of 195 senior company executives that was conducted by the law firm King & Wood Mallesons, 80 per cent of company executives said that the changes made by the previous government were a bad idea. The previous arrangements were pro-shareholders. The government's changes were against the interests of shareholders, and they should have been rejected. Now, Senators, I've got a confession to make. Up until now my speech has been entirely plagiarised. Up until this point—save for an introduction and putting the previous government's changes in past tense—I have recited verbatim from the speech given by the now minister, Mr Jones, in his second reading speech in the House on 15 March 2021 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 that introduced changes to continuous disclosure obligations. I have to say, I really couldn't have made a better case for why the previous government's changes that watered down continuous disclosure obligations need to be overturned than the case that was then made by the now minister when he was in opposition. I couldn't have made a better argument as to why the government should support the Australian Greens' amendments today, because that was exactly the position taken by the now minister Mr Jones when he was in opposition. So I really hope that the government's able to support our amendments, because disclosure of information of the type that is caught by these amendments is critical to the functioning of a market. People have a right to know what's going on inside companies so they can make better-informed investment decisions. Continuous disclosure obligations never should have been watered down. Today we are giving the Senate and this parliament an opportunity to correct that error. 18:11 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I would certainly like to thank those senators who have contributed to this debate. This bill contains measures designed to maintain and improve Treasury portfolio legislation to ensure it remains current and fit for purpose. Schedule 1 modernises several Treasury portfolio laws by amending prescriptive provisions that tie businesses to traditional inefficient methods of communication. It expands the scope of documents covered by the Corporations Act 2001 that may be signed and communicated electronically. The relief currently provided by the Australian Securities and Investments Corporation, ASIC, to entities attempting to contact lost members will be legislated and amended. Requirements to publish notices in newspapers will also be replaced with the requirement to ensure the notices are published prominently and are easily accessible. Amendments to several Treasury portfolio laws will make it clear that electronic payment options are available, and that Treasury portfolio regulators can hold hearings and examinations virtually. These reforms will remove barriers to efficient business operations and reduce costs for consumers, businesses and regulators. Schedule 2 reduces the complexity of Australia's financial services laws, as recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission in its interim report A of its review of the legislative framework for corporations and financial services regulations. The amendments address complexity in the design of definitions in the corporation and financial services law, including by removing redundant definitions and using consistent headings for definition sections. This is designed to facilitate a more adaptive, efficient and navigable legislative framework within existing policy parameters. Schedule 3 transfers long-standing and accepted matters contained in ASIC instruments into the Corporations Act 2001 and the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009. The amendments will improve the clarity of the law, provide certainty and make it simpler for regulated entities and consumers to understand their rights and obligations. Schedule 4 makes minor and technical amendments to Treasury portfolio legislation and this includes amendments that clarify the law to ensure it operates in accordance with the policy intent, make minor policy changes to improve administrative outcomes or remedy unintended consequences and correct technical or drafting defects. I'd just like to go to Senator McKim's amendments and to his speech. Thank you for your contribution, Senator McKim. I know you've been enormously passionate in pursuing this over a very long period. But I do have to say we will not be accepting the amendments that will be moved by the Australian Greens relating to continuous disclosure obligations. While Labor did not support this measure when it was introduced in 2021, amendments ensured there would be a statutory review after two years. That review is about to commence, and we will wait for the review's findings before proceeding with any further change in this area. I commend this bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee 82 18:16 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania As I flagged in my contribution in the second reading debate, I would like to move the amendments that have been circulated in my name in regard to continuous disclosure obligations. I seek leave to move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1796 revised together. Leave granted. Senator McKIM JKM I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1796 revised together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 4), insert: (2) Page 94 (after line 9), after Schedule 3, insert: Schedule 3A — Continuous disclosure obligations Part 1 — Main amendments Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 1 Subsections 12DA(3) and (4) Repeal the subsections. Corporations Act 2001 2 Section 674 (heading) Repeal the heading, substitute: 674 Continuous disclosure — listed disclosing entity bound by a disclosure requirement in market listing rules 3 Paragraphs 674(2)(c) and (d) Repeal the paragraphs, substitute: (c) that information: (i) is not generally available; and (ii) is information that a reasonable person would expect, if it were generally available, to have a material effect on the price or value of ED securities of the entity; 4 Subsection 674(2) (after note 1) Insert: Note 2: This subsection is also a civil penalty provision (see section 1317E). For relief from liability to a civil penalty relating to this subsection, see section 1317S. 5 After subsection 674(2) Insert: (2A) A person who is involved in a listed disclosing entity's contravention of subsection (2) contravenes this subsection. Note 1: This subsection is a civil penalty provision (see section 1317E). For relief from liability to a civil penalty relating to this subsection, see section 1317S. Note 2: Section 79 defines involved. (2B) A person does not contravene subsection (2A) if the person proves that they: (a) took all steps (if any) that were reasonable in the circumstances to ensure that the listed disclosing entity complied with its obligations under subsection (2); and (b) after doing so, believed on reasonable grounds that the listed disclosing entity was complying with its obligations under that subsection. 6 Subsection 674(5) (notes 1 and 2) Repeal the notes, substitute: Note: Failure to comply with this subsection is an offence (see subsection 1311(1)). 7 Section 674A Repeal the section. 8 Section 675 (heading) Repeal the heading, substitute: 675 Continuous disclosure — other disclosing entities 9 Subsection 675(2) After "If", insert "the disclosing entity becomes aware of information". 10 Paragraphs 675(2)(a) and (b) Repeal the paragraphs, substitute: (a) that is not generally available; and (b) that a reasonable person would expect, if it were generally available, to have a material effect on the price or value of ED securities of the entity; and 11 Subsection 675(2) (after note 1) Insert: Note 2: This subsection is also a civil penalty provision (see section 1317E). For relief from liability to a civil penalty relating to this subsection, see section 1317S. 12 After subsection 675(2) Insert: (2A) A person who is involved in a disclosing entity's contravention of subsection (2) contravenes this subsection. Note 1: This subsection is a civil penalty provision (see section 1317E). For relief from liability to a civil penalty relating to this subsection, see section 1317S. Note 2: Section 79 defines involved. (2B) A person does not contravene subsection (2A) if the person proves that they: (a) took all steps (if any) that were reasonable in the circumstances to ensure that the disclosing entity complied with its obligations under subsection (2); and (b) after doing so, believed on reasonable grounds that the disclosing entity was complying with its obligations under that subsection. 13 Section 675A Repeal the section. 14 Section 676 (heading) Repeal the heading, substitute: 676 Sections 674 and 675 — when information is generally available 15 Subsection 676(1) Omit "674, 674A, 675 and 675A", substitute "674 and 675". 16 Section 677 (heading) Repeal the heading, substitute: 677 Sections 674 and 675 — material effect on price or value 17 Subsection 677(1) Omit "(1)". 18 Subsection 677(2) Repeal the subsection. 19 Subsection 1041H(3) Omit "If a person engages in conduct", substitute "Conduct". 20 Subsection 1041H(3) Omit "the person's engaging in that conduct does not contravene subsection (1) of this section", substitute "does not contravene subsection (1). For this purpose, conduct contravenes the provision even if the conduct does not constitute an offence, or does not lead to any liability, because of the availability of a defence". 21 Subsections 1041H(4) and (5) Repeal the subsections. 22 Subsection 1317E(3) (table item dealing with subsections 674A(2), 674A(3), 675A(2) and 675A(3) Repeal the table item, substitute: 23 Subsection 1325(7) (paragraph (c) of the definition of section 1325 order provision) Omit "(other than sections 674 and 675)". Part 2 — Consequential amendments Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 24 Subparagraph 127(2D)(b)(ii) Omit "674, 674A, 675 and 675A", substitute "674 and 675". Corporations Act 2001 25 Section 9 (paragraph (a) of the definition of continuous disclosure notice ) Omit "subsections 674(1) and 674A(1)", substitute "subsection 674(1)". 26 Section 9 (paragraph (b) of the definition of continuous disclosure notice ) Omit "or 675A". 27 Subsection 111AP(1) Omit "674, 674A, 675 and 675A", substitute "674 and 675". 28 Paragraph 111AR(1)(d) Omit "674, 674A, 675 and 675A", substitute "674 and 675". 29 Paragraph 708AA(3)(c) Omit "674, 674A, 675 and 675A", substitute "674 and 675". 30 Subparagraph 708AA(7)(c)(ii) Omit "sections 674 and 674A", substitute "section 674". 31 Paragraph 708A(2)(c) Omit "674, 674A, 675 and 675A", substitute "674 and 675". 32 Subparagraph 708A(6)(d)(ii) Omit "sections 674 and 674A", substitute "section 674". 33 Paragraph 713(6)(aa) Omit "subsection 674(2), 674A(2), 675(2) or 675A(2)", substitute "subsection 674(2) or 675(2)". 34 Paragraph 713A(23)(c) Omit "674, 674A, 675 or 675A", substitute "674 or 675". 35 Paragraph 1012DAA(3)(b) Omit "674, 674A, 675 or 675A", substitute "674 or 675". 36 Paragraph 1012DAA(3)(ba) Omit "674, 674A, 675 or 675A", substitute "674 or 675". 37 Subparagraph 1012DAA(7)(d)(ii) Omit "sections 674 and 674A as they", substitute "section 674 as it". 38 Subparagraph 1012DAA(7)(da)(ii) Omit "sections 674 and 674A as they apply", substitute "section 674 as it applies". 39 Paragraph 1012DA(2)(b) Omit "674, 674A, 675 or 675A", substitute "674 or 675". 40 Paragraph 1012DA(6)(e) Omit "sections 674 and 674A", substitute "section 674". 41 Subparagraph 1013F(2)(d)(ii) Omit "674, 674A, 675 and 675A", substitute "674 and 675". 42 Subparagraph 1013FA(3)(a)(ii) Omit "subsection 674(2), 674A(2), 675(2) or 675A(2)", substitute "subsection 674(2) or 675(2)". 43 Subsection 1017B(2) (note 1) After "Chapter 6CA", insert "(sections 674-677)". 44 Section 1200K Omit "sections 675 and 675A also have the operation they would have if paragraphs 675(2)(c) and 675A(2)(c)", substitute "section 675 also has the operation it would have if paragraph 675(2)(c)". 45 After paragraph 1317DAA(2)(d) Insert: (e) references to a civil penalty order under Part 9.4B being made against a disclosing entity in relation to a contravention of subsection 674(2) or 675(2) are taken to be references to such an order being made against the responsible entity in relation to the registered scheme; and 46 After paragraph 1317DAA(3)(d) Insert: (e) references to a civil penalty order under Part 9.4B being made against a disclosing entity in relation to a contravention of subsection 674(2) or 675(2) are taken to be references to such an order being made against the operator of the fund in relation to the fund; and 47 Subsection 1317DAA(4) Repeal the subsection. 48 Subsection 1317DAB(1) After "675(2)", insert "as an alternative to proceedings for civil penalties under Part 9.4B". 49 After paragraph 1317DAE(1)(e) Insert: (f) must state the maximum pecuniary penalty that a Court could impose under Part 9.4B in relation to the alleged contravention; and 50 Paragraph 1317DAE(3)(d) Omit "(as those subsections applied before the commencement of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Act 2021)". 51 Paragraph 1317DAE(5)(b) Omit "(as those subsections applied before the commencement of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Act 2021)". 52 After subsection 1317DAG(1) Insert: Effect of failure to comply with infringement notice (2) If the disclosing entity fails to do a thing specified in column 2 of the following table within the compliance period for the infringement notice, the disclosing entity is liable to the proceedings specified in column 3 of the following table: 53 Subsection 1317DAG(3) Omit "no proceedings", substitute "no other proceedings (whether criminal or civil)". 54 After paragraph 1317DAI(6)(c) Insert: (d) that civil proceedings under Part 9.4B may be brought against the disclosing entity for a contravention of the provision specified in the infringement notice; and 55 Sections 1683B and 1683C Repeal the sections. Part 3 — Application provision Corporations Act 2001 56 In the appropriate position in Chapter 10 Insert: Part 10.69 — Application provisions relating to Schedule 3A to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Modernising Business Communications and Other Measures) Act 2023 1699 Application of amendments The amendments made by Parts 1 and 2 of Schedule 3A to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Modernising Business Communications and Other Measures) Act 2023 apply in relation to conduct that is engaged in on or after the commencement of those Parts. Part 4 — Review of operation of amendments 57 Review of operation of amendments (1) The Minister must cause a review of the operation of the amendments made by Schedule 3A to this Act to be conducted by an independent expert within 6 months after the third anniversary of the commencement of this section. (2) The person who conducts the review must give the Minister a written report of the review. (3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister. Recommendations (4) The report may set out recommendations to the Commonwealth Government. (5) If the report sets out one or more recommendations to the Commonwealth Government, the report must set out the reasons for those recommendations. Government response to recommendations (6) If the report sets out one or more recommendations to the Commonwealth Government, as soon as practicable, and in any event within 3 months, after the report is first tabled in a House of the Parliament, the Minister must cause: (a) a statement setting out the Commonwealth Government's response to each of the recommendations to be prepared; and (b) the statement to be published on the Department's website. I will be brief. I thank the minister for her response, and I acknowledge the point she made about a review into this. That is, I think, commencing shortly. Notwithstanding that, the arguments put forward by Mr Jones at the time, which I've placed on the record today, are rock solid and, taken as a whole, are absolutely an argument for these amendments to be accepted. I hear the minister's rationale, but I just express my and the Greens' disappointment in the government's position. 18:17 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia The coalition will not be supporting the amendments moved by Senator McKim. The coalition is proud to have supported formalising continuous disclosure laws in government in a manner that got the balance right between informing shareholders and enabling businesses to confidently invest and plan for their businesses. The coalition supports the current statutory independent review mechanism that Senator McCarthy alluded to and will await its conclusion and consider its findings in due course. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 283585 The question is that the amendments be agreed to.  

The committee divided. [18:22]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator O'Sullivan)

 13 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 22 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Babet, R. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. White, L. 0 PAIRS

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

 Third Reading 87 18:25 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I move: That the bill be read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Industry Self-Classification and Other Measures) Bill 2023 88

Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Industry Self-Classification and Other Measures) Bill 2023

Second Reading 88 18:25 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia The opposition welcomes the opportunity to put its views on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Industry Self-Classification and Other Measures) Bill 2023. The National Classification Scheme conducts important work in delivering on the framework for classifying films, computer games and publications. This bill responds to the recommendations of the review of Australian classification regulation conducted by Neville Stevens AO. In his review, Mr Stevens highlighted the enormous changes that had occurred since the classification scheme was introduced in 1995. New platforms such as subscription video on demand services, broadcast video on demand, live-streaming platforms, online games, social media and mobile apps were now common. The Stevens review identified that efforts were needed to keep up with the growing volume of online content requiring classification. Changes would help to reduce the time it took for classifications and the costs associated with the classification process. To help deal with the demand, Mr Stevens recommended self-classification by people trained and accredited by the regulator. These could be in-house staff or third-party classifiers. The work of these classifiers would particularly deal with online films and computer games. The bill provides for a number of safeguards in this system. Those safeguards would include that accredited persons needed to be of fit and proper character, that they have carried out relevant training and that they cannot classify films likely to be rated X 18+ or Refused Classification level. Furthermore, the person's accreditation may be suspended or revoked by the board, and the board may also revoke the classification set by an accredited person. The bill would provide classification exemptions for non-English language films or for public libraries. The Stevens review had identified that such libraries were finding it hard to source films in languages other than English for culturally and linguistically diverse communities. This was because it wasn't commercially viable to pay the cost of a classification for a relatively small number of copies of a foreign film to be purchased for libraries. The Stevens review recommended the development of an exemption for unclassified films in languages other than English for public libraries. The bill supports that recommendation. The bill also seeks to broaden classification exemptions for content used during organised community events. These are events which are run by approved cultural institutions. The changes would allow this exemption to now apply at what are considered to be routine events or exhibitions. These changes would be welcome, particularly in our multicultural communities across the country. The Stevens review highlighted that under existing arrangements classification ratings cannot be carried over between broadcast TV and other platforms such as video on demand. As a result, the same content broadcast on television and other platforms must be classified twice. The bill seeks to pick up on recommendations from the review to reduce duplication and apply a 'classify once' principle for broadcast content. However, the opposition notes that the government was forced to rush in amendments to its own bill in the other place to ensure that the ABC and SBS were not left off the 'classify once' changes. The shadow minister called the government out for that in the other place. The explanatory memorandum states: Cost recovery arrangements for industry self-classification may be considered in a future Budget process. While fees may be applied for accreditation and for training purposes, the bill states that such fees must not be such as to amount to taxation. We understand that this will happen by regulation, and it's important that these costs be kept to a minimum to ensure the intent of the Stevens review to reduce costs is delivered and fulfilled in its entirety. In conclusion, the changes being proposed in the bill are not seen as controversial and are designed to help the sector adapt to a changing media world. It does appear that what we are seeing is that the government has largely dusted off the less controversial matters in the Stevens review and essentially inserted them in what the minister is now calling the first stage of reforms on classification matters. The more difficult or substantive items subject to reform are being incorporated into what is being called a second stage of classification reform and have been pushed off to a later date. The coalition looks forward to scrutinising what the government decides to bring forward in that second tranche of reform. As the shadow minister told the House of Representatives, these changes enact the work the coalition commenced to update Australia's classification system reforms. They are also in line with our election commitment to modernise the classification system. On that basis, the coalition will support the passage of the bill. 18:30 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I thank the senator for his contribution to the debate on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Industry Self-Classification and Other Measures) Bill 2023. The National Classification Scheme plays an important role in informing the media choices of all Australians about what they and those in their care watch, read and play, but successive reviews have highlighted that reforming the scheme is long overdue. It has not kept pace with the way Australians access media content, particularly the rapid growth in online content. The government is taking action to reform the scheme to ensure it is fit for purpose and meets the needs of Australians now and into the future. The bill expands options for industry to self-classify content using classifiers that have been trained and accredited by government, with appropriate safeguards and oversight of these decisions by the Classification Board. It also extends exemptions from classification for low-risk cultural content and removes the requirement to reclassify material that has already been classified for broadcast television. These reforms will make it easier for industry to comply with classification and will improve the capacity of the scheme to classify growing volumes of online content. It also removes unnecessary duplication and introduces a classified-once principal for content that has already been classified for broadcast as a step towards harmonising media regulation for a converged media environment. These amendments are important and necessary to modernise Australia's National Classification Scheme and ensure that it remains a trusted and reliable source of information to all Australians. Once again, I thank Senator Smith for his contribution and commend this bill to the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T The question is that the bill be now read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 89 18:33 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole. 18:33 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Customs Legislation Amendment (Controlled Trials and Other Measures) Bill 2022 89

Customs Legislation Amendment (Controlled Trials and Other Measures) Bill 2022

Second Reading 89 18:34 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria We are going quickly through some big business this evening. I'm happy to step up and assist the chamber by speaking to the Customs Legislation Amendment (Controlled Trials and Other Measures) Bill 2022. The bill before the Senate will allow for time limited trials of trade and custom practices with approved entities in a controlled regulatory environment known as a regulatory sandbox. The bill contains two schedules. Schedule 1 contains the provisions relating to the regulatory sandbox framework. Schedule 2 contains technical amendments which largely relate to the process in which notices of intention to propose customs tariff alterations occur. In speaking to this bill, I note that in the previous parliament the former government introduced a very similar bill which dealt with the same subject matter as this bill. Unfortunately, the previous bill was not dealt with before the dissolution of the House at the last federal election. The bill that the government has introduced is, for all intents and purposes, the same bill that the coalition introduced, especially those provisions in schedule 1, with the only additions being those technical amendments incorporated in schedule 2. I'd like to thank the government for continuing with this former coalition government policy, which of course was very consistent with our Simplified Trade System agenda, which this bill forms a key part of. The bill encourages innovation in testing new business models and regulatory approaches, with appropriate safeguards, through allowing the modification or waiver of existing licensing, importing and exporting obligations under the Customs Act 1901. Under these amendments, the Comptroller-General of Customs will be provided with the power to vary, suspend or revoke an entity's approval to participate in a controlled trial. In doing so, they must provide the entity with a written notice, with a minimum of seven days before the notice takes effect. Taking part in a controlled trial is voluntary, with the trials themselves restricted to a maximum duration of 18 months. There is no imposition of penalty or sanction for failure to comply with the trial; however, the comptroller-general has the ability to suspend or revoke an entity's approval, and this is not subject to merits review. By replacing qualification criteria and rules for controlled trials in delegated legislation, it will allow for controlled trials to be undertaken with a greater degree of certainty and to be administered effectively and in a timely manner. I note that the previous bill was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which recommended that the previous iteration of the bill be passed. Labor members of that committee at the time complained that aspects of the bill such as the qualification criteria for participation in controlled trials would be administered through delegated legislation rather than primary legislation. Despite having made that complaint, the minister has proposed exactly the same bill that her colleagues objected to. Flexibility is required in a dynamic trade environment, and the use of delegated legislation means that changes can be made more expeditiously, as opposed to bringing new legislation through the parliament every time. Delegated legislation is also, appropriately, subject to parliamentary oversight through the disallowance process. If we had to come to this place to amend the Customs Act 1901 each time a controlled trial was being considered, it would defeat the purpose of having controlled trials in the first place. This bill marks the government's endorsement of the previous government's Simplified Trade System agenda, and I appreciate that the government has seen value in a more flexible and productive system. The previous government's agenda was aimed at making cross-border trade for Australian businesses easier and less costly. It means that businesses are more productive, supply chains are more secure and the Australian Border Force can direct more attention to addressing higher order threats. The Home Affairs portfolio was leading a number of initiatives under the Simplified Trade System agenda and making a significant contribution to supporting whole-of-government efforts to simplify the end-to-end trade environment for business. Given the economic conditions green-carded under this government, businesses will need every support they can get to keep their heads above water. Of course, we'll always support good policy which seeks to make life easier for business, and that's the reason why I'll be supporting the passage of this bill without any amendments. 18:38 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I rise to speak to the Customs Legislation Amendment (Controlled Trials and Other Measures) Bill 2022. I'll keep it very brief, but I'll start by placing on the record that the Australian Greens will be supporting this bill. This bill allows for the trials of new policies to be tested before they are widely implemented. This allows time and space to identify issues, gaps or room for improvement before the policy is rolled out across the country. For obvious reasons, making small tweaks to a controlled trial is much easier than making these changes once the policy has been implemented more broadly. Further, it will allow for companies to play with more innovative methods and technologies in a controlled environment under the supervision of the government. This type of framework is often called a regulatory sandbox, and, as the minister stated in her second reading speech: Regulatory sandboxes ensure regulation keeps pace with industry developments, remains fit for purpose and does not become a barrier to innovation and productivity. I note that this bill was introduced under the previous government, and this version of the bill was also sent to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. In this process, there were concerns expressed about the reliance of the bill on regulation. In the previous form of this bill, the qualification criteria were to be determined through regulation by the Comptroller-General of Customs. The committee was of the view that the matter was significant, as the qualification criteria should be included in the legislation unless there is sufficient reason for it to be included in regulations. The Greens are happy to see that this has been removed from the bill that is now before us, as the reliance on regulation, which does not face the same scrutiny as bills, is an issue of transparency. The Greens strongly support the transparency of this parliament and, indeed, of the government as a whole. I would also like to highlight my colleague Senator Steele-John's amendment to this bill, which will now insert a new section into the act to prohibit the importation of goods produced by forced labour. My colleague will go into further detail on this, but I just want to highlight that the International Labour Organization estimated that there were 46.6 million people living in modern slavery in 2021, of which 27.6 million were in forced labour, with 17.3 million in the private sector. Brands that have been found to be benefitting from forced labour include Adidas, Apple, Calvin Klein, Google, H&M, Nike, Puma and Zara, and the list goes on and on. The banning of the importation of goods produced by forced labour is a step that this government can take towards respecting human rights and the dignity of everyone across the globe. 18:41 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I thank senators who have contributed to this debate. The Customs Legislation Amendment (Controlled Trials and Other Measures) Bill 2022 will amend the Customs Act 1901 to support the development of new regulatory approaches and business models in customs and trade with appropriate legislative safeguards. The bill creates a regulatory framework that establishes a customs regulatory sandbox to facilitate short-term trials through temporary variations to certain obligations under the Customs Act. The ability to trial innovative regulatory approaches with industry stakeholders within a controlled environment is an essential tool to guide future reform initiatives. Industry has expressed interest in regulatory sandboxes in the customs context as a mechanism for trialling new approaches to border management. It is important that the ABF be able to respond to this opportunity for industry collaboration in order to develop the evidence base to inform regulatory reform over the long term. Fit-for-purpose regulation aids Australian business, drives economic growth and supports efficient and effective regulatory outcomes for the ABF to continue its important job of protecting the Australian community. A customs regulatory sandbox will be an important tool in the hands of the ABF to work with industry and continue to support reforms under the government's simplified trade system agenda. The bill also aligns customs law with current legislative practice. These amendments will provide more certainty to the process of altering customs tariffs. The bill deserves support. I also table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum related to this bill. The addendum responds to matters raised by the scrutiny of bills committee. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee 91 18:43 The TEMPORARY CHAIR I0T The question is that the bill stand as printed, but I understand that Senator Jordon Steele-John has an amendment. 18:43 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Indeed I do. I move amendments (1) and (2) together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add: (2) Page 15 (after 8), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 3 — Goods produced by forced labour Customs Act 1901 1 Section 50 (at the end of the heading) Add "—general". 2 After section 50 Insert: 50A Prohibition of the importation of goods — goods produced by forced labour The importation into Australia of goods produced or manufactured, in whole or in part, through the use of forced labour (within the meaning of the Criminal Code) is prohibited absolutely. 3 Subsection 51(1) After "section 50", insert "or 50A". 4 Application provision The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to goods imported into Australia on or after the commencement of this Schedule. I am proud to be moving these amendments on behalf of the Australian Greens this evening. This is a move which we embark upon alongside community members and alongside diaspora groups that have been campaigning for this change for a very long time. This amendment would ban the import of products produced by forced labour from entering this country. Australia has been far too slow to act on stopping imports of products produced by forced labour. government measures, including business advisories, sanctions and import-export restrictions have occurred globally, but at this point Australia has not taken any public action. We now risk becoming a dumping ground for products tainted by slavery. Perpetuating this grave human rights violation, rather than placing words of condemnation into action is shameful. Labor voted in support of banning products produced by forced labour when they were in opposition, when the same amendment to the Customs Act was last before the Senate. There is no good reason why they should not do the same today. Minister Wong has foreshadowed that the government will not support this amendment because of the Modern Slavery Review. This is a weak excuse. The terms of reference of the Modern Slavery Review specifically leave out the Customs Act. Labor have also just agreed at their national conference on the following: Over 50 million people worldwide are trapped in modern slavery, many of whom are victims of exploitation in global supply chains. Australia has an important role to play in abolishing modern slavery, Modern slavery is a hidden problem that will not be discovered without meaningful attempts to expose it. Labor will ensure that Commonwealth criminal laws adequately capture, and prohibit, forced labour. Labor will enforce supply chain reporting requirements, including penalties for non-compliance. A wide range of community organisations have joined with the Greens to call on Labor to prioritise this change now, and to do so now that they are in government and have the chance to do it. It is time for Australia to no longer be left to fall behind. It is time for Australia to join countries like Canada and the United States who have already implemented bans on these types of imports. A report released by the International Justice Mission found that more than 90 per cent of Australian businesses have identified potential risks of slavery in their supply chains, yet nearly 85 per cent of 404 company statements submitted to the Modern Slavery Statements Register failed to show any response to slavery or the risk of slavery in their operations or supply chains. Across our region, forced labour is occurring en masse. To give the Senate some international examples, in Indonesia forced labour is seen in industries producing palm oil, on-board fishing vessels and in tobacco production, to name just a few. In Malaysia, migrant workers have been found to be involved in the production of garments under the conditions of forced labour. Globally, state-sanctioned forced labour is particularly common in the cotton sector. Each year in Turkmenistan, during the harvest season, citizens are forced out of their regular jobs to spend weeks picking cotton at work. In Saudi Arabia, millions of migrant workers fill mostly manual, clerical and service jobs constituting more than 80 per cent of the private sector workforce, governed by a system which gives the employers excessive power over their mobility and legal status in the country. Human Rights Watch tells us the system undermines and fundamentally underpins the vulnerability of migrant workers and subjects them to a range of abuses from passport confiscation to delayed wages and forced labour. Exporting prison-produced good is illegal under international and domestic law and international trade law but in the United States prison labour is a multibillion-dollar industry, with 37 states allowing the use of prison labour by private companies. In eight states prisoners are not paid for their work in state-run facilities. Looking to the issues in relation specifically to the Uyghurs and to the treatment of Tibetan people, as this place is aware, since 2017, the Chinese government has imprisoned more than one million Uyghurs and subjected those not detained to intense surveillance, religious restrictions, forced labour and forced sterilisation. A UN report released on 31 August by the outgoing Human Rights High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet contained victim accounts that substantiate mass arbitrary detention, torture, cultural persecution, forced labour and other serious human rights violations. It recommends states, businesses and the international community should take action with a view to ending the abuses and advancing accountability. According to the end Uyghur forced labour campaign, one in five cotton garments are tainted by Uyghur forced labour. Forty-five per cent of the world's solar-grade silicon used for the creation of solar panels comes from the Uyghur region, and more than 17 industries globally are implicated in forced Uyghur labour. In Tibet, UN experts have expressed concern over allegations that so-called labour transfer and vocational training programs imposed on Tibetans by the Chinese government are in fact being used as a pretext to undermine Tibetan religious, linguistic and cultural identity, to monitor and politically indoctrinate Tibetans, and warned that such programs result in forced labour. Some 500,000 Tibetans a year were subject to these programs, transferred to vocational training centres away from their families and homes. This bill gives us the opportunity to send a message on Australia's position on these serious human rights abuses right now. As I have said, this is not the first time that this bill has come to the parliament. In fact, it has passed the Senate previously with the support of all parties, with the exception of the coalition. This included a yes vote from members of the Australian Labor Party. A bill focused on Uyghur forced labour goods was sent to an inquiry and this then produced a broader bill in relation to the banning of forced-labour-produced goods from all over the world without any exception. This was endorsed without reservation and passed by the Senate. It lapsed while sitting in front of the House of Representatives at the 46th Parliament. Even the United States state department, the Labor Party's closest international ally, indicated its support for the goals of the bill in the 46th Parliament, so did Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Fair Trade, Be Slavery Free, the Australian Tibetan Council, a wide range of Uyghur organisations both at home and abroad, and the Human Rights Law Centre amongst so many others. Now is the time to send the message that Australia will not accept products produced by any taint of modern slavery. In the face of ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity occurring in our very own region, this attempt to control the import of products produced with forced labour into Australia should be embraced by every party in this place. This would send a clear message to all countries that Australia sees forced labour as unacceptable and that our community will not accept that there have been goods produced by forced labour within our markets. We could see this parliament take immediate action to stop forced labour imports and no longer have Australia implicated in these horrific human rights abuses. I implore the Senate this evening to pass this amendment without hesitation. 18:54 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The government will not be supporting the amendment from the Greens and Senator Steele-John. The Commonwealth Modern Slavery Act 2018 entered into force in 2018 and enforces reporting requirements. Australia has comprehensively criminalised modern slavery practices in divisions 270 and 271 of the Criminal Code Act 1995, reflecting Australia's obligations under international law and commitment to eliminating modern slavery, which includes forced labour. The reporting requirement applies to large businesses and other entities in the Australian market with annual consolidated revenue of at least $100 million. The reporting requirement supports the Australian business community to identify and address its modern slavery risks and to maintain responsible and transparent supply chains. Entities required to comply with the reporting requirement, including the Australian government, must prepare annual modern slavery statements. These statements must set out the reporting entity's actions to assess and address modern slavery risks in their global operations and supply chains. The Australian government publishes these statements through an online central register. The Australian government is taking a global leadership role in combating modern slavery. There is no place for modern slavery in Australian community or in the global supply chains of Australian goods and services. We take these issues seriously and are taking action. The government is proud to commit an additional $24.3 million in funding for the Support for Trafficked People Program in our 2023-24 budget. This is the largest financial commitment the government has made to combating modern slavery crimes to date and underscores our strong commitment to eradicating modern slavery. Our Modern Slavery Act creates a robust transparency framework to give business actions to identify and address modern slavery in global supply chains. The government is committed to taking action. 18:56 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria For similar reasons to those that the minister outlined, the opposition will not be supporting these amendments. But I do want to take the opportunity to recognise the very genuine sincerity which with the Greens have brought this issue forward and agree with them that this is a serious issue that must be addressed. We are proud of the progress that we made when we were in government in introducing the modern slavery legislation, but I would be the first to acknowledge that it has not solved the problem and that more work is necessary. Equally, I have met with some of the groups that Senator Steele-John outlined in his speech on the amendment, including the Tibetan groups today and Uighur communities and others previously. They are absolutely right to continue to press us to do more to tackle this issue, because it is a shocking scourge and a moral stain. All Western governments should come together to address it in a way that can be effective and proportionate. The TEMPORARY CHAIR I0T A division is required. As the bill cannot proceed until votes can be taken, I shall report to Senate. Progress reported. Ordered that the committee have leave to sit again on the next day of sitting. (Quorum formed) Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2023, Financial Accountability Regime (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 93

Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2023

Financial Accountability Regime (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023

Second Reading 93 19:00 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I rise to speak on the Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2023 and the Financial Accountability Regime (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023. These bills establish the Financial Accountability Regime, extending the existing Banking Executive Accountability Regime. This, of course, is the second time that this chamber will be considering these bills in this form. Last year, you'll recall, the self-opening pinata, the Assistant Treasurer, thought he would be Mr Dealmaker and agree to the amendment proposed by Senator McKim and the Australian Greens to add civil penalties provisions that would impact community bank executives. He did this, we understand, to secure the support of the Australian Greens for the legislation, despite the fact that we had set out from the beginning that the opposition supported this legislation, guaranteeing its passage through the parliament. We know the Assistant Treasurer can't count in economic terms, but it is clear for all to see that he also can't count in parliamentary terms—not a good sign for the Prime Minister's numbers man in the New South Wales Left faction. Of course, the Assistant Treasurer did not think to consult the impacted parties on this new amendment. Why would he? We aren't even sure if he consulted his senior minister, the Treasurer, Dr Chalmers, when he agreed to the amendments proposed by the Australian Greens. Predictably, the Assistant Treasurer's attempt at the art of the deal imploded, his wings were clipped and he was forced to back down. Naturally, Senator McKim feels he has been ripped off and has made this view very clear to the chamber. Is that a nod in affirmation, Senator McKim? Thank you very much—just in case the Hansard didn't capture your enthusiastic nod in affirmation. Just to repeat that, naturally Senator McKim feels he's been ripped off and has made his views clear to the chamber. But, after that deeply unnecessary policy merry-go-round, we are back to where we should have been, albeit months later, with a bipartisan bill that will progress through the Senate this evening. Australia's financial sector is a critical element of our successful economy, and a strong financial sector demands appropriate regulation. Whilst our financial services system has served us well, we can't ignore that the royal commission was necessary. That's why the coalition called it. The coalition committed to taking action on all of the 76 recommendations and additional commitments contained in the final report of the royal commission. We welcome the introduction of the primary Financial Accountability Regime and the compensation of last resort legislation and the government's decision to retain them largely in the same shape and form as proposed. The Financial Accountability Regime extends the existing banking sector responsibility and accountability framework to the insurance and superannuation sectors. The regime ensures that, where misconduct does occur and financial institutions act below community expectations, appropriate consequences will follow. Our support for this bill underscores our commitment to the royal commission's recommendations and the process that we initiated, which, unfortunately, uncovered too many instances of misconduct across the financial sector and highlighted that industry practices were too often not meeting community expectations. With that in mind, the coalition will support the passage of the bill this evening. 19:04 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Westpac, $115,000; ANZ, $50,000; the Commonwealth Bank, $80,400; the National Australia Bank, $60,500; Macquarie Bank, $96,000—those sums are how much each of the major banks donated to the Labor Party in the lead-up to the last election. There was about 400,000 bucks in donations from the major banks to the Labor Party in the lead-up to the last election. That's why these financial accountability regime bills, which are meant to stop bankers from behaving in a dodgy way, don't include fines for dodgy bankers. The Labor Party broke the agreement that they made with the Australian Greens within 24 hours of making that agreement with the Australian Greens, because the moment the dodgy bankers found out about the deal they called in the debts owed. That's what's going on here, colleagues. That's why the major banks donate. That's how democracy works in Australia. It was as naked a display of absolute power as you could ever want to see. It was a complicit revelation about the powers of institutionalised bribery that is political donations in this country. A $400,000 investment to avoid million-dollar fines for dodgy bankers is a great ROI. The fantastic thing for the dodgy bankers is that they didn't even have to use their money to donate; they used shareholders' money to donate to allow them to force a compliant Labor Party to not impose million-dollar fines on dodgy bankers. That's how democracy works in this country. As I said, it's a good ROI. That's before any of us even get to the $144 billion in wholesale funding that the major banks received from the RBA at the height of the pandemic—at the cash rate, I might add. On that funding they are now reaping record profits in large part because the RBA has put up interest rates time after time after time, after promising Australians that interest rates would not go up until 2024. That's also before you get to the ongoing discount on wholesale funding that the major banks receive on the open market as a result of the implicit government guarantee that comes from being too big to fail. The major bank levy recovers at most a third of the benefit for the public. In justifying Labor's backflip on the agreement they made with the Australian Greens to include million-dollar fines for dodgy bankers in this legislation the minister said that he hadn't appreciated the unintended consequences that fines might have, particularly on small banks. We said to the minister: 'Okay. Carve out small banks. We'll be very happy with that.' That the minister hasn't included fines in the new version of these bills with a carve-out for small banks proves that what he said at the time was an absolute ruse. Invoking the impact on small banks was just a way of Labor trying to cover its tracks and cover up the real reason that Labor backflipped—because the dodgy bankers didn't want to leave themselves open to million-dollar fines so they called in the debts they were owed by the Labor Party. Let's be very clear about the agreement the Greens made with Minister Jones. The agreement we made with him would have given effect to exactly what was originally proposed by Treasury in January 2020, before the pandemic hit. While the memories of the banking royal commission were fresh Treasury released a proposal paper on the establishment of a financial accountability regime. That paper—released by the Morrison government, I might add—proposed that individuals be subject to civil penalties for breaches of their accountability obligations and, consistent with the newly introduced maximum penalties for individuals under other acts, those penalties would be 5,000 penalty units, which is currently about $1.1 million, or three times the benefit derived. Then, under the cover of the pandemic, the Morrison government ditched million-dollar fines for dodgy bankers—completely walked away from its own proposal to ensure that executives who breach their accountability obligations face fines. But the Morrison government still didn't get their watered down bill through the parliament. In fact, they never even listed it for debate in either house. I admit that this bit of my speech is speculation, but I think it's a reasonable thing to speculate about. I think the reason the Morrison government didn't list the bill for debate is that there was a fairly good chance that an amendment to include civil penalties for bank executives who breach their accountability obligations would have got up, because in the House at the time Mr Christensen was highly likely to support such an amendment and would very likely have brought along some further members of the National Party. Similarly in the Senate, the crossbench and some National senators stood ready to support an amendment to introduce fines for bank executives who failed to meet their accountability obligations. And who was leading the charge? Who was leading the charge in calling for an amendment to include fines for dodgy bankers? Well, the now Minister for Financial Services, Mr Jones, was leading the charge. On 9 November 2021 he was quoted in the AFR in respect of the financial accountability regime as saying: There's no good reason why [the government] backflipped on the original position. If this is going to have any teeth, there has got to be penalties. That's the now minister, Stephen Jones, saying that if this is going to have any teeth there have got to be penalties. And here we are: a bill that he has sponsored into this parliament on his own argument has no teeth, because it does not include million-dollar fines for bank executives who fail to meet their accountability obligations. This, colleagues, is the modern Labor Party in a nutshell. Now, I don't have high expectations of the Liberal Party. I fully expect them to come in here and do the bidding of the big corporations. But—and maybe I'm naive—I actually do expect the Labor Party to be better than this. It is an absolute travesty that Labor, in government, has walked away from the position it held in opposition, which was to support million-dollar fines for dodgy bankers. It has now walked away from that because the bank executives have signed over massive political donations to the Labor Party, which didn't even come out of their pocket; it came out of their shareholders' pockets. That is the modern-day Australian Labor Party in a nutshell—pulling all the moves in opposition and then folding like a pack of cheap cards to their corporate masters when they're in government. Four years ago we had a once-in-a-century royal commission that uncovered a rampant litany of misconduct and corruption. But I'll tell you who didn't cop it through the banking royal commission, and that is the senior bank executives who ripped off their customers. They went largely unpunished. It was a recommendation of that royal commission that this financial accountability regime be established. But bankers who continue to fail to meet their accountability obligations, allowing their customers to continue to be ripped off, will continue to go largely unpunished, because bankers who rip off their customers have bought the Labor Party lock, stock and smoking barrel. The party that was once led by Ben Chifley is now as much a party of financialised capitalism as their so-called opposition in the LNP. That is exactly why this bill is all carrot and no stick. Yes, 40 per cent of bankers' bonuses will be withheld for up to four years, and if regulators find executives to be breaching their accountability obligations then those bonuses can indeed be confiscated. But missing out on 40 per cent of a bonus is not the same as getting hit with a million-dollar fine. The whole point of a financial accountability regime is to require executives to take reasonable steps to run a bank, a super fund or an insurer in a way that prevents their customers being ripped off. In other words, it's not enough for executives not to deliberately rip off their customers; they actually need to make sure they run an institution in such a way that all the employees know they shouldn't rip off their customers. That is not rocket science, colleagues; that is basic corporate accountability. The civil penalties included under division 6 of the act as it stands apply to institutions that fail to take reasonable steps to protect their customers and to individuals who deliberately rip off their customers, but they do not apply to individuals who fail to take reasonable steps to protect their customers. It is an accountability regime that is weak, and it is deliberately so. It is an accountability regime in name only, a piece of legislation that is masquerading as an accountability regime but actually has in it a loophole big enough to drive an armoured vehicle stuffed full of cash through. That's what we are debating here this evening and that is why the Greens will, in the committee stage, move amendments to this legislation that would provide for an accountability regime that is robust, that actually does its job of protecting bank customers and that includes the capacity for million-dollar fines for dodgy bankers who fail to meet their accountability obligations. It's an amendment that would, as the minister said, give this regime some teeth. If this bill is going to stop bankers from acting in a dodgy way—and the evidence heard by the banking royal commission was absolutely open and shut about the dodgy way in which so many bankers in this country operate—it needs to include fines for dodgy bankers; otherwise it's not going to do the job. Of course, we all know it's not going to do the job and we all know why it's not going to do the job. It is because the banks, in an extraordinary display of their naked power and their control over the Labor Party, within 24 hours of the agreement being made public came down on Minister Jones like a tonne of bricks, and he welched on an agreement that he'd made with me and the Australian Greens. He welched on that agreement because the banks rang up the Prime Minister's office and the office of Treasurer Jim Chalmers and gave the Labor Party its riding instructions. Its riding instructions—and we can all see this as plain as day, colleagues—were: do not include the capacity to issue fines to dodgy bankers, bankers who fail to meet their accountability obligations. The Labor Party sold out bank customers in a flash. They didn't even have to think twice about it. They ignored the reams of evidence before the banking royal commission. They ignored the cancerous culture that exists in the big Australian banks, which was revealed in all of its squalidness by the royal commission. They ignored all of that. They ignored the interests of consumers of banking products and took the side of bank CEOs with their multimillion dollar salaries. They wouldn't even expose them to the prospect of a million-dollar fine if they failed their accountability mechanisms. That is the modern-day Labor Party for you. There is nothing, as it stands at the moment, about accountability and financial regime penalties. In 2017 I chaired the Senate select inquiry into lending to primary production customers. We unearthed so many ghastly, inhuman practices from the major banks and some of the smaller banks. It was so bad that it led to a royal commission. I think it was the Hayne royal commission. Not one executive was penalised. Not one executive was held accountable. Not one executive went to jail. Not one executive, to my knowledge, paid a hefty fine—not one. Yet we saw a litany of abuse of people, borrowers, customers—a litany over many, many years, and not one was brought to justice. Not one was held accountable. This bill, the Financial Accountability Regime Bill, has no personal civil penalties for bankers—none at all. That's what we object to, so I will be supporting Senator McKim's motion tomorrow. I point out exactly what Senator McKim said. Mr Jones in the lower house is a friend of the banks. The Labor Party is the party that brought in, under the Fisher Labor government of 1910-11, the Commonwealth Bank, and the most important thing it did was get Australia's banking foundations set up. It supported infrastructure. We were the only country to come out of the First World War without any debt. We also established trade and our industry thanks to the Commonwealth Bank. But the biggest thing the Commonwealth Bank did as a public bank, as a people's bank, was ensure accountability through competition with the big private banks. It is sad to say that Labor Party governments and Liberal Party governments—and the predecessors to Liberal Party governments—slowly, surely and deliberately dismantled the Commonwealth Bank until Paul Keating flogged it off as another retail bank. There is no accountability in the banking sector at the moment. Executives can do whatever they damn well please. As it is, I can't support this bill without a financial accountability regime that is real and honest in it. 19:22 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'd like to thank those senators who have contributed to this debate. Together these bills implement the Financial Accountability Regime. Through these bills, the government is finalising the necessary action to ensure that financial institutions are meeting the community's expectations and to ensure that their executives face real consequences if those expectations aren't met. The Financial Accountability Regime delivers on the government's commitment to finalise the implementation of five recommendations from the banking royal commission. The FAR will increase the accountability of financial institutions in the banking, insurance and superannuation industries and their most senior executives and directors, restoring trust and confidence in a sector that plays an integral role in the wellbeing of all Australians in our economy. The FAR imposes four core sets of obligations on accountable entities and accountable persons. Firstly, accountable entities and accountable persons must conduct their business in a proper manner, which includes acting with honesty and integrity and with due skill, care and diligence, dealing with the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission in an open, constructive and cooperative way, preventing adverse impact on the accountable entities' prudential standing and preventing breaches of certain specified financial services laws by the accountable entity. Further, accountable entities must ensure clear identification of accountabilities for accountable persons in the organisation across key areas of operations and defer at least 40 per cent of the variable remuneration of accountable persons for a minimum period of four years. Variable remuneration will be reduced where accountability obligations are breached. The FAR will be supported by the imposition of notification obligations which require accountable entities to provide APRA and ASIC with information on responsibilities of their accountable persons or breaches of certain obligations. After an ASIC will jointly administer the FAR. They will have the power to disqualify accountable persons, investigate breaches of the FAR, direct entities to take action and apply to the Federal Court to impose a civil penalty on accountable entities. The government's also grateful for Senator David Pocock's engagement on the FAR bill, particularly in relation to the ministerial exemption power, which is expected to be exercised in very rare circumstances. We have incorporated the amendments that Senator Pocock proposed last year to more clearly articulate the scope of this power and to provide for parliamentary oversight. The government will, however, not accept the amendment moved by the Australian Greens to introduce individual civil penalties for breaches of accountability obligations. The government's bill already contains effective measures to address executive failures to comply, including disqualification, loss of deferred bonuses and individual civil penalties for assisting in an entity's contravention of its obligations. These sanctions are on top of penalties for misconduct already in place in other financial services laws. These measures are finely balanced to improve executive conduct in the financial services sector without adversely impacting the sector's efficiency. Adding individual civil penalties is not likely to substantially increase the level of deterrence that already exists, while it may impact on firms seeking to attract and retain the best executive talent. I commend these bills to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bills read a second time. In Committee 97 19:26 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I am seeking the call to move my amendments, but, before I do that, I'll say: I am not sure who wrote that rubbish for you, Senator Watt, but I have rarely heard such an insipid excuse for such a major backflip, and I've been in the Tasmanian and Australian parliaments, for my sins, for over 20 years. I mean, what an absolute load of rubbish. As if putting an accountability regime in place is actually going to stop people applying to be CEOs and senior executives of banks where they can make multimillion-dollar salaries and the only reason that they would have those fines applied would be if they failed to meet their accountability obligations. If that is enough to turn someone off applying for such a job, they have no right to be in that job. They have no right to be in that job and earn their multimillion-dollar bonuses. This is where we peel the lid back on this parliament and reveal the Australian Labor Party for what it is: a party of the corporates, a party of the oligarchs, in this country. That is what we're dealing with here. To hear Senator Watt get up and mount such a pathetic, insipid defence of the Labor Party's position absolutely beggars belief. Let's go back and have a listen to what Mr Jones said on 9 November 2021. He said, 'If this is going to have any teeth, there has got to be penalties'. But, of course, we have a bill that doesn't have those penalties in it, and, therefore, on Minister Jones' own argument, doesn't have any teeth. Ultimately, this country needs to end the institutionalised bribery of political donations. The banks have got themselves an absolute corker of a deal here. There were $400,000 in donations from the major banks to the Labor Party in the lead-up to the last election—$400,000 to avoid million-dollar fines. As I said in my speech in the second reading debate, the bank executives didn't even have to invest their own money in those donations. They were able to invest their shareholders' money in those donations. There are a whole range of what I think are really valid questions to the government here, and I think it would really help Australians to understand what has happened if the government was able to step us through its contact with the Australian Banking Association—including, I might add, what conversations were had between its head, the former Labor Premier of Queensland Ms Anna Bligh, and the Prime Minister, or the Prime Minister's office, or the Treasurer or the Treasurer's office. I have no doubt that Ms Bligh, who well knows her way around the top echelons of a government, didn't muck around with Minister Jones's office when it came time to issue the Labor Party its riding instructions. I have no doubt that Ms Bligh went straight to either the Treasurer, or the Prime Minister or both—or, at the very least, to the office of the Treasurer, the office of the Prime Minister or both. That's because this was as spectacular a backflip as you would ever want to see from Minister Jones, from shaking hands with me in his office and saying that he accepted the agreement that we had made—that in return for the Greens facilitating the passage of the legislation last year he would accept our amendment to provide for million-dollar fines for dodgy bankers. He went from that to, 'Oh, no, we never made a deal,' in less than 24 hours—less than 24 hours, colleagues! That's what happened. I heard Senator Smith's observations, and it is correct to say that the Greens were never in balance of power on the substance of this bill. We have supported this bill today because it does give effect to a lot of the recommendations of the banking royal commission. The agreement with Minister Jones was about facilitating the passage of the bill last year when, in fact, the Liberal Party were not prepared to facilitate the passage of the bill. So we were in the balance of power on an hours management issue rather than the substance of the bill itself. I do want to place that on the record because I think the observation that Senator Smith made was a fair one, and I wanted to make sure that the facts and the truth of this matter are clearly on the table as we debate this. So we find ourselves here. The Financial Accountability Regime Bill will pass at some stage this week, I have no doubt. It has some measures that are results of the recommendations of the banking royal commission and it's on that basis that the Greens will be supporting the legislation. But what it doesn't have is what it really should have had, and that is teeth: as Minister Jones said in opposition, 'teeth'. I will remind colleagues that this is the second time today I've got up and placed on the record something that Minister Jones said when he was in opposition which he and the government have completely walked away from now they're in government. That's why politics has got such a bad reputation amongst Australians, because, honestly, they believe—and with some justification—that a lot of us in this place couldn't lie straight in bed at night. A lot of the time, the commitments we make in the lead-up to elections aren't worth the paper they're printed on or the breath with which they're spoken. I urge the Labor Party to support our amendment, even though they've been very clear that they're not going to do that. And, secondly, I urge the Labor Party to come up with some better excuses for its backflip because, quite frankly, they were pitiful, pathetic excuses that Minister Watt placed on the record when he was summing up on the second reading. I seek leave to move amendments (1) to (13) to the Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2023 on sheet 1913 together. Leave granted. Senator McKIM JKM I move amendments (1) to (13) to the Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2023 on sheet 1913 together: (1) Clause 4, page 4 (line 7), omit "or by the Regulator through disqualification", substitute "by the Regulator through disqualification, or through civil penalties for non-compliance". (2) Clause 14, page 18 (line 12), omit "or disqualification by the Regulator", substitute ", disqualification by the Regulator, or civil penalties for non-compliance". (3) Clause 18, page 22 (after line 6), at the end of subclause (1), add: Note: Failure to comply with an obligation under this Chapter is a contravention of a civil penalty provision (see section 80). (4) Clause 35, page 42 (line 7), after "disqualified", insert "or liable to a civil penalty". (5) Clause 40, page 49 (after line 17), after paragraph (4)(e), insert: (ea) details of any civil penalty order made against the person for a contravention of a civil penalty provision of this Act; and (6) Clause 80, page 85 (after line 12), at the end of the clause, add: (3) A person contravenes this subsection if: (a) the person is an accountable person of: (i) an accountable entity that is a medium or large banking entity; or (ii) an accountable entity that is not an ADI or an authorised NOHC of an ADI; and (b) the person is subject to an obligation under Chapter 2 in relation to the entity; and (c) the person fails to comply with the obligation. Note: It is generally not necessary to prove a person's state of mind in proceedings for a contravention of a civil penalty provision (see section 94 of the Regulatory Powers Act, which applies because of section 82 of this Act). (4) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (3). (5) In this section: medium or large banking entity means: (a) an ADI that is, immediately before the day that is 6 months after this Act commences, a medium ADI or large ADI under the Banking Act 1959; or (b) an authorised NOHC of such an ADI. (7) Clause 83, page 88 (line 9), omit "Note 1", substitute "Note". (8) Clause 83, page 88 (lines 11 and 12), omit note 2 to subclause (3). (9) Heading to clause 97, page 102 (line 24), at the end of the heading, add "and accountable persons". (10) Clause 97, page 102 (after line 32), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) An accountable entity, or a significant related entity of an accountable entity, must not (whether by agreement or by making a payment, and whether directly or through an interposed entity): (a) indemnify a person who is or was an accountable person of: (i) the accountable entity; or (ii) a significant related entity of the accountable entity; against the consequences of breaching an obligation under this Act; or (b) pay, or agree to pay, a premium for a contract insuring such a person against the consequences of breaching an obligation under this Act. (11) Clause 97, page 103 (line 1), omit "Subsection (1) does not", substitute "Subsections (1) and (1A) do not". (12) Clause 97, page 103 (line 4), at the end of subclause (3), add "or (1A)". (13) Clause 97, page 103 (lines 6 to 9), omit paragraph (4)(a), substitute: (a) subsections (1) and (1A) apply to a related body corporate (other than a significant related entity) of an accountable entity in the same way as they apply to a significant related entity of the accountable entity; and In the brief time that is left for me, I again want to be very clear about this. When the minister backflipped on the agreement that he had made and shaken hands with me on, he said he hadn't appreciated the unintended consequences that fines might have for small banks. We actually heard that concern, and in fact I wrote a letter to the minister on behalf of the Australian Greens saying that actually we would be happy with a carve-out for the small banks and the small companies, because we were not after them. We were after the big banks, because they're the ones where the CEOs get the multimillion-dollar pay packets and the multimillion-dollar bonuses on top of that, and they're the ones who've got the wherewithal, the experience and the capacity within their organisations to put in place measures that ensure that their accountability obligations are met. But this bill has not come back with million-dollar fines for dodgy bankers with a carve-out for the little folks, the small banks. This bill has come back without civil penalties for dodgy bank executives who allow their customers to be ripped off, and that is truly a massive missed opportunity for this Senate and for the parliament. We will not give up on applying these fines, and I want to be very clear with all of my colleagues in the Senate that the Senate has not heard the last of million-dollar fines for dodgy bankers. 19:36 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia The opposition will not be supporting the amendments on sheet 1913. These amendments go beyond the scope of the recommendations of the royal commission that the coalition committed to implementing. Extending penalties as set out in these amendments has not been the subject of a public consultation process, and it is not clear that it will provide any additional disincentive on top of the already significant penalties for financial institutions set out in the bill currently. 19:37 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The government won't be supporting these amendments, for the reasons outlined by my colleague earlier, in the closing speech in the second reading debate. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 252157 The question before the chamber is that the amendments moved by Senator McKim be agreed to. It appears that a division will be required on resumption tomorrow. As the bill cannot proceed until votes can be taken, I shall report to the Senate. Progress reported. Ordered that the committee have leave to sit again on the next day of sitting. Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Modernisation) Bill 2022 99

Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Modernisation) Bill 2022

Second Reading 99 19:38 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania I rise on behalf of the coalition this evening to make a contribution on the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Modernisation) Bill 2022. This bill amends the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 and implements outstanding recommendations from the Comprehensive Review of the Legal Framework of the National Intelligence Community, known as the Richardson review, undertaken by Mr Dennis Richardson. We in the opposition acknowledge the work of Mr Richardson and his review. The Richardson review was initiated by the coalition when we were in government. It provided important guidance about the way in which the oversight framework of our intelligence community could be strengthened. At the heart of liberal democracies is the concept of accountability. Built into our public life are mechanisms that allow for that accountability through the media, through civil society and, of course, through the parliament. Questions can be asked of those who hold positions of authority and who exercise responsibilities on the behalf of others. The capacity for the public to inquire into and scrutinise the activities of those who hold power is part of what makes a democratic institution so strong. But, by necessity, when it comes to our intelligence community, those mechanisms must be slightly different. The ability to operate under some element of secrecy is part of what enables our intelligence agencies to do their very important work, and that must not be undermined. To misunderstand or undervalue secrecy for those agencies is to put lives at risk and compromise the capacity of agencies to continue keeping Australians safe into the future. When secrets or information that should be classified are divulged or shared, the entire architecture of our intelligence community is undermined and weakened. In those circumstances, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and other bodies that provide oversight of our intelligence agencies are extraordinarily important. These oversight bodies hold our agencies to account. They enable the public to have confidence in our agencies. Oversight must be robust, credible, effective and thorough. This is not to undermine the work of intelligence agencies but to give them the credibility they need to maintain the trust of the broader public. The Richardson review gave Australians many reasons to be encouraged about the state of Australia's intelligence community and the legal frameworks under which it operates. While the review provided a number of recommendations to strengthen the legal architecture existing around our intelligence agencies, it also reaffirmed that the fundamental principles that underpin Australia's intelligence legislation remain fit for purpose. It is worth spending a little time this evening talking about the role of the IGIS, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, as envisaged under the changes of this bill. Among the changes recommended by the Richardson review was an adjustment to the remit of the inspector-general to reflect the changed architecture of Australia's intelligence community. In this respect, the bill follows the course charted by the coalition's bill in the last parliament, the Intelligence Oversight and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity Measures) Bill 2020. The bill will enact some of the changes included in the earlier coalition government's bill, which also sought to implement recommendations of the Richardson review. Relevantly for both the Defence Intelligence Organisation and the Office of National Intelligence, ONI, the bill will bring oversight arrangements for those two agencies in line with the treatment of other intelligence agencies when it comes to the initiation of an investigation. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security will be able to inquire into the Defence Intelligence Organisation and ONI in response to a complaint, not just on its own motion or in response to the direction of the minister. This is consistent with the treatment of other agencies within the remit of the inspector-general. The bill also aims to reduce duplication between the inspector-general and other oversight bodies, such as the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force and the Commonwealth Ombudsman. It contains information-sharing provisions that are intended to avoid the double handling of complaints and inquiries. The bill also gives the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security a clearer capacity to receive information from a broad range of sources while ensuring that that information is protected to the largest extent possible. This strengthens the capacity for the inspector-general to carry out its work. The bill seeks to ensure that, when an inspector-general of intelligence and security is appointed, they have some appropriate distance from the agencies that they will be overseeing. This is the implementation of recommendation 172 of the Richardson review. It means that a person cannot be appointed to the role of Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security if their immediate prior role was as a head or deputy head of an agency within the inspector-general's remit. The bill also sets out other changes, including vesting the inspector-general with the jurisdiction to investigate employment related grievances at the ONI. This is because staff at the ONI may be employed under the Office of National Intelligence Act and not the Public Service Act, so they may have limited statutory recourse to raise employment related grievances. This bill aligns the handling of employment-related grievances for staff employed under the ONI act with arrangements for ASIO, ASIS and ASD employees. The bill also contains a number of measures that update the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act and allow the inspector-general to adopt more modern operating procedures. For example, it allows the inspector-general to engage consultants and contract service providers rather than employing solely staff. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security was referred this bill by the Attorney-General, and on behalf of the opposition I thank the Attorney-General for making that reference and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for their very hard work in reviewing this bill. Any time that legislation affecting our national security architecture is introduced, it should be subject to very careful scrutiny from a parliamentary committee like the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Parliamentary committees, as we all know in this place, have the unique advantage of being able to receive submissions and examine witnesses so that they can determine how proposed changes within legislation will work in practice. In the examination of this bill the PJCIS have made some important recommendations which are worth noting. In particular, the PJCIS noted that numerous inquiries have recommended an expanded oversight for the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, and for the PJCIS to cover the entirety of our national intelligence community. I understand the Attorney-General has given his assurance that the government is giving this matter due consideration, and we look forward to seeing the government progress this matter. The PJCIS also recommended the need for greater information-sharing between the inspector-general and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and we wait to see the government's response to those matters also. As I said at the start of my remarks, many of the measures contained within this bill are measures that the coalition introduced back in 2020 in the Intelligence Oversight and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity Measures) Bill, and we continue to support those measures in their current incarnation as they appear in this bill. To that end, the coalition will be supporting this bill. 19:47 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales The Greens don't oppose the bill, but we will be speaking to a number of amendments if we get to the committee stage today, or when the matter returns tomorrow. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Modernisation) Bill 2022 makes a number of amendments to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986. It also amends a number of other related pieces of legislation. The principal amendments which will have any kind of substantive impact are as follows: they make some changes to the inspector-general's oversight powers; they support some additional information-sharing by the Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security—which, for simplicity, I will refer to as IGIS going forward; they make changes to the appointment of the inspector-general; they take into consideration some of the employment-related grievances that were picked up in recommendations 172 and 174 of the Comprehensive Review of the Legal Framework of the National Intelligence Community; and they make clear that information that is protected by existing secrecy offences under the legislation can still be disclosed to IGIS officials when they are performing their duties or functions or exercising their powers as IGIS officials. Currently, the only provision the IGIS act states for appointing the IGIS is that there is to be consultation with the opposition leader prior to the recommendation to the Governor-General for the appointment of that statutory office. The Greens are firmly of the view that that kind of club-based process, where it is just the government of the day and the opposition leader, is not a healthy way of appointing this critical office. I'm sure many senators know that the IGIS has the capacity to review the operational activities of the intelligence agencies. The PJCIS, the parliamentary joint committee—which of course has been populated, historically, only by Labor or coalition MPs, despite the clear statutory requirement that it reflect the breadth of political parties in the parliament—even though it is populated and controlled by the club, is expressly prohibited from reviewing operational activities of the security agencies. As Senator McKim will probably tell you, oversight of some of those operational activities of the intelligence agencies, such as bugging our neighbours, like the government of Timor-Leste, or bugging their legal officers—which, of course, our security agencies have been quite happy to do—and those kinds of activities, are not the job of the PJCIS because they're expressly prohibited from looking at operational matters. So when there are concerns raised about the misuse of security powers, the overstepping of operational activities or the illegal bugging of our neighbours, the place that we look to institutionally to review those potentially illegal, unethical or inappropriate practices by the security agencies is of course the IGIS. That's what it's meant to do; that's what it's established to do. Whether it always does that is a matter for some significant debate, and perhaps Senator McKim will give an instance of where it hasn't achieved that outcome—particularly in relation to that deeply unethical bugging operation. But that's the job of the IGIS. So we can see why it's important that the IGIS actually be independent of the security agencies that it's overseeing because it's basically the only cop on the beat. It's a deeply secretive cop, but it's the only cop on the beat to oversee the way in which security agencies operate. One of the good measures in this bill is that it inserts a new subsection, (3A), into subsection 6 of the act. It's designed to provide: … that the head or deputy head of an agency within the IGIS's jurisdiction is not to be appointed as the Inspector-General immediately following their service in an intelligence agency. Obviously, that's a step forward in terms of the independence of the IGIS. It's a measure that the Greens will support. The bill also proposes amendments to subparagraph 8(1)(a)(v): … by omitting 'being an act or practice referred to the Inspector-General by the Australian Human Rights Commission'. That's intended to clarify: … that the IGIS is able to inquire into any matter that relates to an act or practice of ASIO that is or may be inconsistent with or contrary to any human right, that constitutes or may constitute discrimination … That's regardless of where that concern is raised. Again, we support that kind of clarifying measure. But of course there are a number of additional recommendations from PJCIS that are, at best, partially implemented in this bill. When the PJCIS reviewed it, their recommendation 1, 3.11, said: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government consider amendments to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1979 and the Intelligence Services Act 2001 to provide for greater information sharing between the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Recommendation 1, 3.12, was: The Committee recommends that the Government report to the Committee within twelve months of the presentation of this report on the outcomes of such consideration. And recommendation 2 reads: The Committee recommends that Item 86 of Schedule 1 of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Modernisation) Bill 2022— This bill— be amended to align the provisions relating to abrogation of legal professional privilege with equivalent provisions in the legislation governing other integrity agencies. Recommendation 3 is: 3.19 The Committee recommends that the Office of National Intelligence develop an employment framework governing staff members that may be engaged under subsection 33(1)(b) of the Office of National Intelligence Act 2018. 3.20 The Office of National Intelligence should report to the Committee in 12 months on progress towards implementing this recommendation. Recommendation 4 is: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government consider amendments to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Modernisation) Bill 2022— Again, this bill— to prescribe that a person would be ineligible for appointment to the role of Inspector-General for an appropriate period of time to be determined by the Government, following employment in an intelligence agency. And recommendation 5 is: The Committee recommends that, following implementation of the recommendations in this report, the Bill be passed by the Parliament. At best, the bill partially implements those recommendations coming from the PJCIS. The Greens are of the view that some further amendment should be considered in the committee process that implements the PJCIS's recommendations in full—not partially implements them but implements them in full. The Law Council of Australia also made representations on the bill, noting that they had only a limited time to provide those submissions. But they addressed a number of critical issues, the first being the process for appointment of the inspector-general, the second being the inspector-general's statutory functions, the third being the safeguards that are needed to adequately protect those who are required to provide privileged information to the inspector-general and the fourth being consistency with comparable legislative approaches—in particular, legal professional privilege. One of the matters the Law Council thought was important—and it's one of the recommendations they made to improve the IGIS bill—was that consideration be given to whether the eligibility and selection criteria for the role of Inspector-General should be included in the act itself. Eligibility criteria that were proposed by the Law Council included whether the candidate had previously been a judge of a federal court or a superior court of record of a state or territory, had been enrolled as a legal practitioner for at least five years and, not surprisingly, also had suitable experience or knowledge of the Australian intelligence communities. These seem like sensible additional matters that should have been considered and incorporated by the government when bringing forward this bill. The Law Council also saw merit in inspector-generals being appointed only with the approval of the joint committee. The Greens have on many occasions criticised the narrow membership of the joint committee, but at least that would provide some kind of parliamentary oversight of the appointment of the IGIS. Indeed, just pausing there, there have been calls from academia and from others engaged in this space to make the IGIS an officer of the parliament—to be reporting not to a minister, not to executive government—to make the IGIS, like the Auditor-General, an officer of the parliament who reports directly to the parliament through, probably and appropriately, a select committee. The reason that is repeatedly raised is the very narrow remit the parliamentary joint committee has when it comes to oversighting security agencies. And the scheme that's been established by the parliament places enormous trust, enormous statutory powers, in the IGIS and then has the IGIS effectively reporting to the executive government that it's meant to be oversighting. Couple that with excluding the parliamentary joint committee from scrutinising the operational activities of the security agencies. You can see the compelling argument to make the IGIS an officer that reports to and is responsible to the parliament of the day rather than the executive government. Again, it's a missed opportunity in this bill to explore some of those more fundamental structural reforms that would provide some kind of realistic democratic oversight of the security agencies. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 103 ADJOURNMENT Larmenier Catholic School 103 20:00 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise this evening to talk about a wonderful school in my home city of Launceston. Last Friday 1 September, I had the immense pleasure of visiting Larmenier Catholic School at St Leonards in northern Tasmania to see the finished works provided under the Commonwealth Capital Grants Program. I was warmly greeted by the school captains Matilda Babcock, Ruth Lockhart, Logan Brimfield and Rory Kingston, and I can tell you they were such an impressive group of students. It was a beautiful school with passionate teachers and very eager students. On behalf of the Minister for Education, the Hon. Jason Clare, I was able to officially open the new administration area, library and staffroom redevelopment as well as the new flexible learning spaces, which will improve students' educational outcomes. During the official assembly, we listened to the school's wonderful choir. They gave an outstanding version of the Australian national anthem as well as their school song. They were an absolutely beautiful choir. This important development was delivered thanks to $589,836 provided by the Albanese Labor government through the Capital Grants Program. I acknowledge the wonderful builders and architects for the work that went into this project and the patience of the students, the teachers and the school community while this work was being undertaken. The redevelopment and relocation of the administrative area and library as well as new enclosed access and breakout spaces for middle primary general learning areas means a lot to that school community. These new facilities will provide school staff, teachers and students at Larmenier Catholic School with better, more modern spaces in which to work, teach and learn. The Albanese Labor government is committed to providing all schools with appropriate funding so that all students, including those at Larmenier Catholic School, get the best possible education. This development will benefit students currently at Larmenier Catholic School as well as the many students who will continue to progress through that school—and we know that the intake of more students is ever-present within the Catholic education system. The teachers, staff and students at Larmenier Catholic School have built a strong and positive school community, and these new facilities will further enhance our local educational opportunities. As I said at the opening, the Albanese Labor government strongly believes in providing the best possible resources so that local students can realise their potential and develop the skills they need to go on to further study or to find a job. I'd like to acknowledge the Minister for Education, the Hon. Jason Clare, who is showing great leadership within the education portfolio. He has a passion for learning and a passion for education and wants to ensure every Australian child gets the best education regardless of their postcode. Thank you too to Principal Nicola Pearce of Larmenier Catholic School for hosting me and allowing me to help celebrate the opening. It was wonderful to join with her at Larmenier with such a great school community, with students, parents, guardians and grandparents all there as part of the school to give support. I'd also like to acknowledge Father Damien for the blessing of the school. It is so important, as we know, for Catholic education and for Catholics generally to have their facilities blessed, so it was lovely to meet him and to be part of that ceremony. I'd also like to acknowledge Catholic Education Tasmania's vision for Catholic schools and the importance of investing in educational spaces. As I said, the enrolments are ever-growing in Catholic schools throughout the country, so, like with public education, we need to ensure that all schools, whether they're public or Catholic, have access to the facilities that are going to be beneficial for the students, for the teachers, for the school community and for admin. This was a prime example of how new redevelopments and how reconfiguring existing buildings can make learning easier and provide those really important break-out areas. Our future leaders will come from that school—our doctors and hopefully our teachers, our builders and our engineers. Therefore, as part of the Albanese Labor government, I'm very proud to have been able to facilitate the opening of those new facilities. I congratulate the school—the principal, the students and the whole school community—and wish them all the best for the rest of the year. Defence 104 20:05 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria ( The DSR—that is, the Defence Strategic Review—highlights the importance of Australian's northern bases. Our bases in the Northern Territory and in the north-west of Australia in Western Australia are essential for Australia's capability and are major drivers of economic activity for many communities. It was on this note that I had the privilege of being able to see firsthand the important role our ADF personnel do to protect our country. Last week, I went along with a number of members of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and had the pleasure of inspecting a number of these ADF sites throughout Western Australia and the Northern Territory with my committee colleagues. As the Australian Defence Force prepares to assume a historic degree of naval capability, we must remember that AUKUS is about more than just high-profile acquisitions. It is a comprehensive approach to our national security that requires the efforts of everyone involved in defence, from our personnel to industry to policymakers and thinkers. That's why it is fundamental that across our nation—especially in this building—we have an accurate and holistic understanding of what it will take to enable and support the defence capabilities we need now and will need into the future. It's for this reason that I'm chairing an inquiry into the capability and capacity of Australia's defence industry, and it's for this reason that I'm glad to take part in these site visits. Our tour began in Perth, at HMAS Stirling—the home port of our current fleet of Collins-class submarines, the future base of Australia's nuclear-powered submarine capability and the home of nearly 4,000 ADF personnel. Though HMAS Stirling will undoubtedly be a focal point for public and media attention over the coming years, it's important to consider it in the context of the broader vision for regional security identified by the Defence Strategic Review. Over 1,000 kilometres up the coast, we inspected RAAF Base Learmonth—an integral loop in the chain of the northern Australian air base network. Strong investment by the Albanese government will ensure that RAAF Base Learmonth will continue to provide air and joint capability to the ADF, extending over maritime approaches to HMAS Stirling. Just down the road from Learmonth stand the 13 giant towers of Naval Communications Station Harold E. Holt. It is home also to state-of-the-art space surveillance equipment. The station's very-low-frequency or VLF transmitters are some of the tallest structures on the continent, with transmission power measured in megawatts. It's the most powerful transmission station in the southern hemisphere. The station provides vital low-frequency communication to our submarines and those of our allies, particularly the United States, and high-frequency communication services in support of Australian and allied forces within 3,700 kilometres of our coast. Another C-27 flight and 1,000 kilometres to the north-east, RAAF Base Curtin, like RAAF Learmonth, is one of the ADF's air bases, maintained by small crews in peacetime and kept ready to receive and operate combat and logistics squadrons should the need arise. Travelling north one last time to RAAF Base Tindal, we toured the string of defence facilities that stand guard over the western and northern approaches to our great country over the course of four days. These bases are essential enablers for Australia's defence capability, current and future, as well as major drivers of economic activity for many local communities. We had the pleasure of meeting the ADF personnel who work around the clock enabling the operation of our current capabilities and whose expertise will be essential to our successful adoption of the recommendations of the Defence Strategic Review and implementation of the AUKUS agreement. Most valuably, the committee and I were left well-informed about the operation of defence bases in the Northern Territory and the north-west of Western Australia. The sheer expansiveness of our approaches is an excellent natural advantage that aids our defence, and we are investing in technologies and capabilities that will best complement and exploit this advantage. It's clear to me, after inspecting these bases, that these facilities constitute the backbone upon which we can build and maintain a sophisticated and efficient defence force, a defence force capable of rising to the challenges of an increasingly complex strategic environment. I want to thank the committee staff who coordinated these inspections and made them possible. Thank you to all the ADF personnel—in particular, Lieutenant Colonel Luke Dawson—who were so gracious in sharing their time and expertise with the members of the committee. While I'm on my feet I want to acknowledge the ADF personnel who are here in the parliament this week as part of the ADF Parliamentary Program—including Lance Corporal Aden Morgan, who's in my office—and thank Lieutenant Colonel Andy Martin for coordinating the program. Senate adjourned at 20:10