﻿
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2023-09-05</date>
    <parliament.no>2</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>0</period.no>
    <chamber>Senate</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>1</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;" />
            <a href="Chamber" type="">Tuesday, 5 September 2023</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The PRESIDENT (Senator </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">the Hon. </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Sue Lines</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">)</span> took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tabling</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Meeting</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Customs Legislation Amendment (Controlled Trials and Other Measures) Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6952" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Customs Legislation Amendment (Controlled Trials and Other Measures) Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>In Committee</title>
            <page.no>1</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Honourable senators, the committee is considering the Customs Legislation Amendment (Controlled Trials and Other Measures) Bill 2022 and amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1888 revised, moved by Senator Steele-John. A division was called after 6.30 pm yesterday and therefore was deferred. The question before the committee is that the amendments on sheet 1888 revised, moved by Senator Steele-John, be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [12:07]<br />(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>14</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>25</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>White, L.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.<br />Bill agreed to.<br />Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>2</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2023, Financial Accountability Regime (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>2</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r6988" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2023</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r6986" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Financial Accountability Regime (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>In Committee</title>
            <page.no>2</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The committee is considering the Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2023 and a related bill and amendments (1) to (13), on sheet 1913, to the Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2023, moved by Senator McKim. A division was called for after 6.30 pm yesterday and was therefore deferred. The question before the committee is that the amendments on sheet 1913 moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [12:16]<br />(The Chair—Senator McLachlan) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>17</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>31</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>White, L.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Does any senator wish to make a further contribution at committee stage? Senator Roberts.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yesterday, as a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I spoke on Senator McKenzie's matter of public importance regarding the decision by Minister Catherine King to give Qantas a substantial commercial advantage in the Qatar Airlines application for more flights to Australia. I pointed out that the Qatari government owns Qatar Airlines, while Qantas's most influential shareholders are the merchant banks that invest money on behalf of the world's richest predatory billionaires. I raise the question: who does this government represent? Is it everyday Australians or foreign wealth?</para>
<para>Here we are again, the very next day, debating the Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2023—a bill devoid of financial accountability. A financial accountability regime bill with no accountability is a bill that could more rightly be called the 'Letting bank executives do whatever they want bill 2023'. Banking executives in Australia are a protected species for the same reason Alan Joyce and Qantas are protected: crony capitalism.</para>
<para>The big four banks have almost identical major shareholders. They have the same owners as Qantas, including Vanguard with $15 billion in shares in the big four banks, BlackRock with $5 billion, and then the usual suspects with smaller holdings, such as State Street, JP Morgan, Charles Schwab, HSBC and others. With these common owners making up a controlling share, it means we do not have four big banks. We have one monstrous bank with four divisions working under four logos. Why would the banks compete with each other when that competition will lessen their profits and, in turn, reduce the flow of dividends to these investment funds?</para>
<para>Our banking legislation, our checks and balances, were not written for an eventuality where investment funds with A$40 trillion in funds available bought controlling shareholdings in all the big four banks and used those shareholdings for their own financial benefit in a way that reduces competition and has reduced competition. Investment funds get assistance from complicit executives. Those complicit executives know the deal when those same investment funds elect directors who then employ the executives. The same executives know that they have to follow orders to keep their jobs and their fat pay cheques. The same executives then pursue the now infamous ESG measures to ensure that a bank lends only for projects that meet so-called environmental, social and governance standards. ESG is shorthand for using banks to enforce political objectives, like enforcing net zero by defunding coal, gas and most mining while lending for speculative investments in hydrogen and similar unproven fantasy technology.</para>
<para>Why would banks take a course of action that puts shareholders' funds at risk? It's because these big investment funds own the companies that profit from those investments. ESG is nothing more than the billionaires who run the world using their ownership of our banks to lend to themselves for risky investments that, if they fail, will reduce their equity. It will reduce the equity of mum and dad investors more. They carry the risk. Everyday Australians are shouldering the risk of these misinvestments that benefit only the world's most wealthy individuals. As George Carlin famously said, 'It's a club, and you'—everyday Australians—'ain't in it.'</para>
<para>I wonder if whoever made the decision to take personal financial penalties out of the financial accountability regime is in the club. Are you? Those penalties were in this legislation when the Turnbull government introduced it—although, of course, it is not being used, because nobody in the Liberal Party or the Labor Party has the guts to take on these investment funds—least of all, it would appear, Assistant Treasurer, Stephen Jones, who authored this bill.</para>
<para>Everyday Australians are feeling the pain from the failure of this government to govern without fear or favour. Bank branch closures and de-banking are hitting everyday Australians hard, and the banking cartel just sit back and count the profits—record profits. The most glaring exclusion from this bill is the absence of civil penalty provisions such as fines for bankers. To translate that into plain English, it means that senior bankers who behave badly will not, under this bill, face personal fines—no fines at all.</para>
<para>Making bad bankers pay big fines isn't an idea One Nation and the Greens pulled out of thin air. The Treasury department was the one that initially proposed it. The proposal paper for the financial accountability regime that Treasury published in 2020 included civil penalties for bad bankers. The big bank lobby circled the wagons, mustering all of their high-powered lobbyists and industry groups to browbeat Treasury into removing the personal civil penalties. When the Morrison coalition government introduced the 2021 version of this bill, civil penalties had disappeared. Labor had a chance to fix that when they introduced their versions of the bill, first in 2022 and now with this one in 2023. Instead, the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services, Stephen 'I love the bankers' Jones, has joined Labor at the hip with their crony-capitalist banking suck-up mates in the coalition.</para>
<para>This bill's time line is a glaring example of what's wrong with our country's governance. In 2017 I chaired the inquiry of the Senate Select Committee on Lending to Primary Production Customers, while at the same time we called for a royal commission into the banks. The horror stories we uncovered in that Senate inquiry were enough to make my skin crawl and my stomach churn: banks stealing land and even livestock straight out from under farmers' feet, cattle rustling, foreclosing on properties where there hadn't been breaches of loan repayments, preying on vulnerable people, stealing whole farms, and rewarding mates amongst insolvency practitioners and other farmers. Rabobank, after being fined hundreds of millions of dollars for serious breaches in America, was destroying families in our country. It was all under your watch.</para>
<para>The evidence of banking practices we uncovered during that inquiry forced the government's hand. With the testimony of those victims, the government had no option but to call the Hayne Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry. The bill now before us supposedly implements recommendations of that royal commission. What a joke! It's been more than six years since the Senate select committee I chaired was established. At the end of that long road not a single banker has been thrown in jail for their criminal actions—not one. To my knowledge, not a single banker has paid any civil penalty for the outright fraud uncovered in the royal commission—not one. At the end of the long road to this bill we have something that still will not impose personal civil penalties on bankers who breach their accountability regimes. And you guys just let it continue. If you want to know who holds all the power in this country, look no further than the fact that civil penalties have been dropped.</para>
<para>One Nation supported Senator McKim's amendment to insert civil penalties back into the bill, but, alas, it failed. If that amendment had been successful, we would have supported the bill. Without that amendment this bill does not go far enough to place accountability on misbehaving bankers, and we cannot support its passage. Minister, why does this bill not contain civil penalty provisions for senior bankers who fail their accountability obligations?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I acknowledge Senator Roberts's speech. I don't agree with large parts of it. In this bill, within the legislation before us, there are penalties. Individuals can lose deferred remuneration and can be disqualified from being able to work in the industry, and there are individual civil penalties for assisting an entity's contravention of obligations.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, are you aware who owns our big four banks? Let me read the list of shareholders of those banks right now so that you may have some idea of where I'm going. Shareholders of National Australia Bank Limited are the Vanguard Group, with 3.3 per cent; BlackRock Fund Advisors; Vanguard Investments Australia Ltd; Norges Bank Investment Management; State Street Global Advisors; Colonial First State Investments; Goody Capital; BlackRock Advisers; Netwealth Investments; and Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec. Let me read them for the Commonwealth bank: Vanguard Group, BlackRock Fund Advisors, Vanguard Investments Australia, Norges Bank, Goody Capital, Australian Foundation Investment Company Limited, BlackRock Advisors, Netwealth Investments, FIL Investment Management and Vanguard Global Advisors. Westpac: the Vanguard Group, Vanguard Investments Australia, BlackRock Fund Advisors, Norges bank, State Street Global Advisors, Goody Capital, Advance Asset Management, BlackRock Advisors, Australian Foundation Investment Company, Netwealth Investments. ANZ group: the Vanguard Group—is there an echo in this room? BlackRock Fund Advisors—there's that echo again! Vanguard Investments—it's still here! State Street—another echo! Goody Capital—another echo! BlackRock Advisors—another echo! This place is an echo chamber, and that's probably very appropriate. There's Netwealth Investments—another echo! Dimensional Fund Advisors—they're only in ANZ. There's Vanguard—another echo! BlackRock investment—another echo! Minister, are you aware of this?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm certainly aware that there are millions of shareholders in Australia's big banks and across Australia's financial system, yes.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>So you allow it to continue with no accountability. It seems we don't have four big banks; we have one monstrous bank working under four logos and with four divisions. There's no difference between their primary products and services and their ways of operating. Their products, services and operations are so similar that I recognised, as chair of the Senate Select Committee on Lending to Primary Production Customers back in 2017, that they operate as one. They're a cartel. Are you aware of the common ownership and common products and services of these banks?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That information is available to all of us. In Australia we're transparent around shareholding in big companies. I am aware and you are aware, and you're aware because that information is available.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The difference, Minister, between you and me is that I want to do something to fix it. What will your government do about protecting Australians from these parasitic predators?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't agree with the language that you've used, Senator Roberts.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister says, in effect, that she agrees they're parasitic predators. Legislation needs to have teeth. Without teeth, massive regulation protects the big four from accountability because of the complexities needing deep pockets for lawyers. A farmer or a small-business man or woman cannot afford the lawyers that the big banks resort to at the drop of a hat, because they're protected by deep, complicated legislation. These barriers are barriers to accountability. Are you aware of that, and what do you plan to do about it?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>No, I don't agree with that. The bill we completed debate of yesterday is the Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2023. So, no, I don't agree with that, and I do believe that, since the royal commission, there has been a significant increase of protections through legislative reform like this to make sure that we get a properly regulated and accountable financial system. This is one piece of that. So, no, I don't agree with you.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>These regulations provide barriers to entry of new competition to the big four—or the 'big one'. Are you aware of that, and what do you plan to do about it?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If your question is about whether I think it's a barrier to competition, the answer is no.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That wasn't my question. The massive amount of complex regulations are protecting the big four banks, and they're a barrier to competition.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think I've answered that. In a sense, you're arguing in a circle, because we are putting in place legislative protections and regulations to make sure there is a stronger financial system in this country to deal with some of the problems that we saw come through in the lead-up to and during the banking royal commission. We're putting those in place to protect consumers and to make sure that we have a strong, profitable, well-led banking and financial system in this country. This legislative response is part of that. The regulations are there to offer that protection. They're not to limit competition.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>They're effectively working as such. The government's bank deposit guarantee scheme is worthless. Firstly, it's not automatic, because the Treasurer has to invoke it. If he doesn't, there's no guarantee of bank deposits. Secondly, it covers only a maximum of $80 billion out of $1.3 trillion in bank deposits. For example, the Commonwealth Bank, I understand, has 30 million deposit accounts, meaning an average of $670 per deposit. Meanwhile, the previous government passed a bank bail-in provision that your party, Minister, supported. These are other ways in which banks avoid accountability for their mistakes and greed. They take none of the risk and all of the profit. They have no penalty for excessive greed causing failure, because government bails them in. When will your government start protecting Australian citizens and revoke the bail-in, for example?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The work that has come out of the royal commission, which this is a part of, is precisely about that, Senator Roberts.</para>
<para>Bills agreed to.</para>
<para>Bills reported without amendments; report adopted.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>5</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That these bills be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bills read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Modernisation) Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>6</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6964" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Modernisation) Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>6</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security plays a critical role, but I have to say that, from the view of the Greens, the oversight mechanisms that relate to this country's security apparatus are not as comprehensive as they should be. I will first mention the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Obviously that is a closed shop. That committee is made up of the so-called parties of government in this place and it is a committee from which the crossbench, both in this place and in the House, are excluded. What that means, in terms of its operation, is that the major parties collude behind closed doors of that committee, and that committee pumps out recommendations that basically deliver on the agenda of the security apparatus in this country.</para>
<para>That's how we see the ongoing erosion of rights and freedoms in Australia. That's one of the reasons we are the only liberal democracy in the world that does not have some form of charter or bill of rights. Critically, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security does not oversight the operations of our security apparatus. So we need a suite of oversight measures that allow for adequate scrutiny of our security agencies. One example of why we need adequate oversight of our security agencies—and a further example of the gap in the oversight of our security agencies—is what's happened since one of our security agencies bugged the cabinet deliberations of the government of Timor-Leste at the very time that Australia was in negotiations with Timor-Leste over treaty arrangements pertaining to petroleum deposits in the Timor Sea.</para>
<para>As history shows, a brave whistleblower, Witness K, reported concerns he had to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and then, on the basis of advice, went to Mr Bernard Collaery, who was then providing him with some legal advice. Mr Collaery and Witness K were then charged—wrongly so—in relation to their behaviours. They should never have been charged. Witness K ultimately pled out—and I have huge sympathy for Witness K—and Mr Collaery went through multiple years of legal travails before ultimately the charges against him were finally withdrawn on the basis of a decision by the now Attorney-General, Mr Dreyfus.</para>
<para>But the issue here is that the bugging of the Timor-Leste government was never adequately investigated. It is the view of the Greens, having long considered this case, that there are elements of that bugging that create the crime of a criminal conspiracy that was conducted here in the ACT, when decisions were made here in Australia, in jurisdiction for Australian law, that ultimately resulted in the bugging of the Timor-Leste government. That is one of the many reasons we need a proper, far more comprehensive suite of oversight mechanisms to hold our security agencies to account.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEELE-JOHN</name>
    <name.id>250156</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>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 and a number of related acts. The primary amendments' substantive impacts will be to make changes to the inspector-general's oversight powers; to support appropriate information sharing by the Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, the IGIS; and to make changes to the appointment of the inspector-general and consideration of employment related grievances, as per recommendations 172 and 174 of the Comprehensive Review of the Legal Framework of the National Intelligence Community. The bill also will have the effect of making clear that information that is protected by the existing secrecy offences under that legislation can be disclosed to the IGIS officials performing duties or functions or exercising powers as IGIS officials.</para>
<para>Currently, all the IGIS Act imposes in relation to appointment of the IGIS is consultation with the opposition leader prior to the recommendation of the appointment to the Governor-General. In that way, it is quite similar to the, let's just say, cosy arrangement for membership of the PJCIS. I'm joined in the chamber during this debate by Senator Shoebridge, who knows all too well just how cosy that relationship is. The major parties band together to ensure that nobody but the members of their special club is granted the opportunity to play any oversight role over our intelligence services. Well, hasn't that led to some fantastic decisions? We could go back to the Iraq War or the invasion of Afghanistan—such clear examples of a need to have folks who are maybe a little bit separate from the groupthink that seems to dominate the major parties involved in the oversight processes of intelligence services.</para>
<para>This bill inserts a new subsection (3A) into section 6 of the IGIS Act. The new subsection will, to quote the explanatory memorandum:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… 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.</para></quote>
<para>This bill also amends paragraph 8 by omitting the words 'being an act or practice referred to the Inspector-General by the Australian Human Rights Commission'. This is intended to clarify that the IGIS can 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 or that constitutes discrimination, regardless of it.</para>
<para>The bill was reviewed by the PJCIS, for all the good that that is worth, and the committee's inquiry got only four submissions—not unusual for a review by such a committee. We will be moving amendments to reflect some of the recommendations from the PJCIS and, indeed, to reflect the feedback of the Law Council of Australia. I will step the committee's recommendations out clearly for the Senate. Recommendation 1 was:</para>
<quote><para class="block">3.11 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.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3.12 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.</para></quote>
<para>Recommendation 2 was:</para>
<quote><para class="block">3.15 The Committee recommends that Item 86 of Schedule 1 of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Modernisation) Bill 2022 be amended to align the provisions relating to abrogation of legal professional privilege with equivalent provisions in the legislation governing other integrity agencies.</para></quote>
<para>Recommendation 3 was:</para>
<quote><para class="block">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.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Office of National Intelligence should report to the Committee in 12 months on progress towards implementing this recommendation.</para></quote>
<para>Recommendation 4—I think it's important to underline this particularly—was:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Committee recommends that the Australian Government consider amendments to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Modernisation) Bill 2022 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.</para></quote>
<para>And then, of course, recommendation 5 was:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Committee recommends that, following implementation of the recommendations in this report, the Bill be passed by the Parliament.</para></quote>
<para>These are some pretty basic recommendations that have been stepped out here, and they are recommendations that I'm sure will go some way to improving the regime.</para>
<para>I'd also take you to the Law Council of Australia's comments on the appointment process and why it is so important that there be consideration given to whether the eligibility and selection criteria for the role of inspector-general should indeed be included within the IGIS Act. The Law Council is really clear here. They believe that the eligibility criteria could include, for instance, having 'previously been a judge of a federal court or a court of a state or territory, or been enrolled as a legal practitioner for at least five years; and suitable experience or knowledge of the Australian intelligence community'. This is a really key point. I can absolutely see why the Law Council has made this point. You have to have had some background experience in actually understanding in depth how the Australian intelligence community functions to be able to play this particular role.</para>
<para>On the question of appointment, the Law Council go on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">A model for a more transparent mechanism for the appointment of the Inspector-General is provided by the recently enacted process for the nomination of National Anti-Corruption Commissioners (NACCs).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">NACCs are appointed by the Governor-General on the basis of a ministerial recommendation that has either been approved by, or deemed to have been approved by, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In the Law Council's view, accountability for, and transparency of, the Inspector-General's appointment would be enhanced if the Joint Committee were to be required to approve nominees for the office.</para></quote>
<para>Based on those views, they recommended:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Consideration should be given to Inspectors-General being appointed by the Governor-General based on ministerial recommendations that have been approved by the Joint Committee.</para></quote>
<para>These are some basic oversight and accountability mechanisms that have been replicated very successfully in other parts of our legislative and appointment system.</para>
<para>I'll also quote from a submission and a piece of information provided to us from the Australian Muslim Advocacy Network. They have said, first of all—it's quite nice of them, really, to do this at all—'We thank you for the opportunity to comment on this bill.' They then explicitly ask the committee to work 'to ensure Australian Muslims' physical and psychological safety from the harms of racism and Islamophobia'. They go on to observe:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Committee may be aware of our push to amend the definition of a terrorist act, to remove the reference to religious cause. Consistent with that amendment, we—</para></quote>
<para>that is, 'they' in this context—</para>
<quote><para class="block">seek for ISIS, and al-Qaida to be categorised as ideologically motivated terrorism.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We hope to guide the Committee on steps the Australian Government can take to strengthen inclusiveness.</para></quote>
<para>Particularly in relation to this bill, they state:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We note that the existing section 8 of the IGIS Act 1986 … empowers the Inspector General to inquire into</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">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, or that is or may be unlawful under the Age Discrimination Act 2004, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 or the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, being an act or practice referred to the Inspector-General by the Australian Human Rights Commission.</para></quote>
<para>They have also drawn the government's attention to the process of making complaints to IGIS. They drew the committee's attention to the fact that on 7 December 2021 they complained to IGIS concerning ASIO and the Director-General of Security. On 16 August 2022 they received a reply, which stated:</para>
<quote><para class="block">As you may be aware, the Inspector-General's statutory role is to review the conduct of Australian intelligence agencies to ensure that they act legally and properly, and consistently with human rights where an act or practice is referred to the Inspector-General by the Australian Human Rights Commission.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In this case, I can confirm that the Acting Inspector-General has carefully considered the matters you raised that are within the Inspector-General's jurisdiction; and after examining a range of materials relating to your complaint, the Acting Inspector-General did not find errors of legality or propriety in relation to the actions of either the Director-General of Security or ASIO.</para></quote>
<para>While the Australian Muslim Advocacy Network appreciated receiving a response, it found the IGIS response was altogether uninformative. It did not clarify what laws or standards were used to judge the director-general's conduct. It noted that the ASIO director-general exercised more caution in relation to various incidents, particularly police shootings in December 2022. The network welcomed that caution.</para>
<para>It went on to recommend for the committee's consideration:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 1: We would welcome clarification in the Act that IGIS will consider breaches of human rights and discrimination law in a complaint, regardless of whether the AHRC has referred the complaint to them.</para></quote>
<para>It's pretty basic stuff. It's pretty basic—the idea that this office would consider breaches of human rights and discrimination in law in a complaint regardless of whether the Human Rights Commission had referred the complaint to them. It's a perfectly reasonable recommendation. Recommendation 2 states:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We request the Attorney Generals' Department …</para></quote>
<para class="italic"><inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank my parliamentary colleagues for their contributions to the debate on the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Modernisation) Bill 2022. Just as the powers of the intelligence and security agencies need to be adapted from time to time to address new security challenges, the powers of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security must also adapt in response to the changing nature and activities of intelligence and security agencies. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act was enacted in 1986. It was designed for a smaller agency and a different Commonwealth integrity framework. This bill will enhance the inspector-general's oversight of the agencies within its existing jurisdiction, ensuring that Australia's oversight functions are commensurate with the functions and powers of intelligence agencies. I thank my colleagues for their contributions and commend the bill to the Senate.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>In Committee</title>
            <page.no>8</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question to the minister is in relation to a number of recommendations that came from the PJCIS. The first is in relation to recommendation 1. The committee recommended that the Australian government consider amendments to this bill to provide for greater information sharing between the IGIS and the PJCIS and then recommended that the government report to the PJCIS on outcomes of that consideration. Does the government support that recommendation, and is there an explanation for why it's not found in the bill?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government tabled its response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on 27 July 2023. The committee recommended that the government consider amendments to provide greater information sharing between the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Since the committee presented its report, the Attorney-General introduced this bill. The bill proposes amendments that will establish a closer relationship between the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and it was referred. That is the position of the government. We did not support those changes.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Why is there resistance to greater information sharing between the IGIS and the parliamentary oversight committee?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We believe that the legislation that is before the committee addresses these issues in an appropriate way.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Recommendation 2 of the PJCIS report was that item 86 of schedule 1 of this bill be amended to align the provisions relating to abrogation of legal professional privilege with equivalent provisions in legislation governing other integrity agencies, which would provide for fuller protection to be given to legal professional privilege than is currently available. Why is that not incorporated in this bill?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Again, the government tabled its response to the report by the PJCIS on 27 July. The government acknowledges the importance of legal professional privilege as it serves the public interest in the administration of justice. The proper administration of justice requires that clients are able to communicate freely and frankly with their lawyer without fear of disclosing any information relevant to the legal advice they are seeking. The IGIS Act currently provides for the limited abrogation of legal professional privilege that is held by the Commonwealth. The IGIS Act does not operate to abrogate the privilege held by private individuals or entities who make seek legal advice about their rights or liabilities in the dealings with the Commonwealth agency. The act currently provides that an official is not excused from giving information, providing a document or answering a question when required because doing so would disclose legal advice to a minister or Commonwealth agency. In reaching its own view on the legality of agencies' activities the IGIS can be assisted by understanding how the agency self-considered the activity was lawful; however, existing section 18(6)(b) of the IGIS Act applies only to the disclosure of legal advice itself and not the communications that are made for the dominant purpose of giving legal advice.</para>
<para>The amendments will ensure that the IGIS Act applies to both advice and the litigation limbs of legal professional privilege. These amendments are consistent with the equivalent provisions in the legislation governing other integrity agencies including the Ombudsman Act. These amendments were also included in the Intelligence Oversight and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity Measures) Bill 2020 introduced by the former Attorney-General, Christian Porter.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the government aware of the concerns raised by the Law Council about the limited protection for legal professional privilege, even with this amended bill, and their call for further amendments to item 86 of schedule 1 to include after the word 'agency' the words 'or would disclose a communication between an officer of a Commonwealth agency and other person or body being in communication protected by disclosure by legal professional privilege'? Perhaps I will ask the second question that flows from the Law Council's submission. They were seeking some greater protections for derivative use of material that was obtained not withstanding a claim of legal professional privilege. What is the government's position on the concerns raised by the Law Council?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My understanding is that the PJCIS did consider that submission and decided that the current legislation was adequate. That is also the position of the government.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The bill makes for very, very limited changes on the kind of revolving door going from a security agency into the position of inspector-general. Recommendation 4 of the PJCIS was that the Australian government consider amendments to 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. In the view of the government, what is such an appropriate period of time?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Again, the government tabled its response as part to the PJCIS report on 27 July. Ensuring the IGIS is, and is seen to be, independent from agencies it oversees is imperative to maintaining public confidence in office of IGIS. The bill would make it explicit in the IGIS Act that a person who is the head or deputy head of an intelligence agency within IGIS' jurisdiction is not eligible to be appointed as the inspector-general immediately after they finish their role within an intelligence agency. This amendment reflects existing practices in appointing the inspector-general and was recommended by the comprehensive review recommendation 172. The former government agreed to the recommendation of the comprehensive review in December 2020.</para>
<para>This measure seeks to prevent the most acute circumstances where actual or perceived conflicts of interest are likely to result in an undermining of trust in the IGIS. However, not all the prior experience within an intelligence agency would necessarily amount to actual perceived conflict of interest, but it is important government otherwise has the discretion to consider all of the circumstances and isn't arbitrarily prevented from choosing the ideal candidate. These amendments were also included in the then Intelligence Oversight and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity Measures) Bill 2020, introduced by the previous Attorney-General, Christian Porter.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, it's true, isn't it, that someone can go from being a Director-General of ASIO on 1 January, take a month off and go to be the IGIS inspector a month later? Or they can move from being in charge of ASIS on 1 July and then go to be the Inspector-General on 2 July? They can literally walk out, have a fortnight off, and then go straight into being the independent inspector of the agency they've just walked out of. Is that how it works?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's generally not good in this chamber, Senator Shoebridge, to answer hypotheticals. But I would say that you cannot go from being the director-general or the deputy director-general of an agency to then be appointed to this position.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The legislation says that you can't do that immediately; you can't just walk from A to B, but you can go from A to B via a fortnight off in Bali, can't you?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My understanding is that time off doesn't count for a previous position.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>To be clear: is it the government's position that somebody has to have another substantive appointment or employment between the two before they can step out of a senior role in one of the intelligence agencies to take the inspector-general role? There's no temporal limit but there's some kind of other restriction? Minister, literally, I'm just trying to understand what the government's view of its own legislation is.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd refer you to my previous answer on that one, Senator Shoebridge.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, this is one of the key integrity changes proposed to ensure that there's genuine distance between the independent inspector and the agencies which it oversees. So what is the situation? In what circumstances can someone cease being in charge of an intelligence agency and then go to being the independent inspector? What's the restraint proposed in this bill?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In trying to assist Senator Shoebridge, I will refer to my previous answer, but I'll be explicit in what I was talking about there. Again, I reference answering hypotheticals, which I find are not helpful in these debates. However, not all experience within an intelligence agency would necessarily amount to actual or perceived conflict of interest. It is important that government otherwise has the discretion to consider all of the circumstances and that it isn't prevented arbitrarily from choosing the ideal candidate.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Is it really arbitrary when somebody goes from being in charge of an intelligence agency one day and then a month later finds themselves as the independent inspector appointed by the government? That's not arbitrary. That's a genuine conflict of interest where, potentially, they're marking their own homework. What is the actual constraint? What's the extent of the constraint? Or is the government comfortable with somebody being appointed to the role of IGIS and then literally marking their own homework, the work that they did as a former head of an intelligence agency? Are you comfortable with that?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have provided the answer, Senator Shoebridge.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—At the request of Senator Thorpe, I move amendments (1) to (7) on sheet 2089 together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 26), after item 8, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8A At the end of subsection 6(3)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add "and the Australian Human Rights Commissioner".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 1, item 9, page 6 (lines 1 to 4), omit subsection 6(3A), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Limitations on appointment of Inspector-General</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3A) A person must not be appointed as Inspector-General if the person is, or the person's most recent position was:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the head or a deputy head (however described) of an intelligence agency; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Chief of the Defence Force; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a Minister; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) a member of the House of Representatives or a Senator; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the head of a Commonwealth agency not mentioned in any of the preceding paragraphs.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3B) A person must not be appointed as Inspector-General unless the person has appropriate qualifications, knowledge, skills or experience to perform the role.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 1, page 18 (after line 15), after item 91, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">91A At the end of section 18</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Requirement to consider certain matters before requiring information, documents or attendance to answer questions</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) Before requiring a person to give information or produce documents under subsection (1), or to attend before the Inspector-General to answer questions under subsection (3), in relation to a matter under inquiry, the Inspector-General must consider whether the requirement is reasonable, proportionate and necessary having regard to the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the nature and gravity of the matter under inquiry;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the likely substance and importance of the information, documents or answers in relation to the matter under inquiry;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the likely weight that would be attributed to the information, documents or answers in relation to the matter under inquiry;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) whether any other information, documents or answers are available to the Inspector-General from any other source in relation to the matter under inquiry.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Schedule 1, page 22 (after line 19), after item 118, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">118A At the end of section 26</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Limitation on certain paid work after holding office as Inspector-General</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) A person who ceases on or after the commencement of this subsection to hold office as Inspector-General must not, during the period of 5 years starting on the day after the day the person so ceases, engage in paid work (other than paid work for, or on behalf of, the Commonwealth or as an officer of the Commonwealth) in relation to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the production of weapons; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the exploration or extraction of fossil fuels; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) national security.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) To avoid doubt, subsection (5) does not apply in relation to ceasing to act as the Inspector-General.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Schedule 1, item 131, page 26 (line 24), after "Commonwealth", insert ", or law of a State or Territory,".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Schedule 3, item 1, page 51 (line 3), after "<inline font-style="italic">1986</inline>", insert "(other than the amendment to insert subsection 18(10) of that Act)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Schedule 3, item 1, page 51 (after line 7), after subitem (4), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4A) Subsection 18(10) of the <inline font-style="italic">Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986</inline>, as inserted by Schedule 1, applies in relation to a notice given by the Inspector-General on or after the commencement of that Schedule under subsection 18(1) or (3) of that Act.</para></quote>
<para>These amendments together propose a number of changes which largely are intended to implement the recommendations which came from the PJCIS. We're often told how important the PJCIS is, that it's got a lot of kumbaya, that it comes up with a unanimous recommendations after considering material closely. We then find that, even with all that kumbaya, it doesn't extend to this chamber, because their recommendations are not actually adopted or reflected in the legislation. These amendments largely try to move from kumbaya to legislation, which is probably a step forward.</para>
<para>The first amendment seeks to include the Australian Human Rights Commissioner at the end of subsection 6(3) of the act, which would include the Australian Human Rights Commissioner in the list of persons who will be consulted on the appointment of the inspector-general. Given the very clear human rights concerns that are often considered by the IGIS, ensuring that that human rights lens is applied on the appointment, the Greens believe, is a positive outcome.</para>
<para>Amendments (2) and (4) really work together on putting further limitations on the appointment of the inspector-general. They provide that a person must not be appointed as inspector-general if the person's most recent position was the head or deputy head of an intelligence agency, the Chief of the Defence Force, a minister, a member of this house or the other, or the head of a Commonwealth agency that's not already included in the very limited list of limitations, as well as requiring the person to have appropriate qualifications, knowledge, skills and experience.</para>
<para>Proposed amendment (4) puts additional limitations on paid work for the inspector-general after leaving the office. It is a five-year prohibition on that person engaging in work in relation to the production of weapons in the arms industry, the exploration or extraction of fossil fuels or going back into the national security field. This is so there is a guaranteed period, after engagement in this highly sensitive office, with regard to industries that often come under the remit of the IGIS's statutory work. Those amendments seem sensible. They do, I accept, go beyond the bare recommendations of the PJCIS. They extend them and take them further, but they would promote the integrity of the office.</para>
<para>Amendments (3), (6) and (7) are to deal with the issue of self-incrimination and coercive powers, really in large part picking up the concerns that have been raised by the Law Council on the abrogation of important privileges. One of the concerns raised by the Law Council was that the immunity from self-incrimination only applies in relation to the prosecution of Commonwealth laws. Of course, in this space there are a raft of state and territory laws that cut across the Commonwealth laws and security. The Law Council proposed that the prosecution immunity for those who voluntarily provide information and documents to the inspector-general should not be limited to offences under Commonwealth law and should apply, for completeness, to offences under federal, state and territory laws. These amendments seek to do that.</para>
<para>Taken together, they are an advancement on the bill. They support the independence of the IGIS. They protect and promote important, longstanding common-law rights and immunities in a balanced way. I commend them to the Senate.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will speak first of all to the proposed Greens amendments on sheet 2096. The coalition will not be supporting those amendments. These amendments would place new administrative hurdles in the path of the IGIS. Specifically, before engaging consultants or service providers, the IGIS must clear jurisdictional hurdles that would require them to satisfy a requirement that is not reasonably practical to engage persons who have suitable qualifications and experience from the Public Service. It is unclear whether these new provisions would open up new grounds for administrative law challenges or what the operational impact more generally might be. Indeed, it is possible that these provisions may impede the IGIS in the conduct of its oversight functions. For those reasons, the coalition considers the amendments unnecessary.</para>
<para>In relation to the amendments from Senator Thorpe on sheet 2089, the coalition will not support these. We do not consider these amendments are necessary. In relation to items (1) and (2), the proposed changes are unnecessary. In particular, limitations on the person who may be appointed as inspector-general go much further than was recommended by the Richardson review. In relation to item (3), the proposed restrictions on the IGIS's powers is not necessary given its important oversight role. It would create unnecessary delay and administrative burdens, broaden avenues for legal challenge, and impede important oversight function. In relation to item (4), this goes far beyond a transparency or integrity measure. It is an inappropriate restriction on the freedom of the individual to engage in paid work and can only disincentivise individuals from taking on the IGIS role. In relation to item (5), the case for significant changes to this important immunity has not been made out. It is unclear what problem this change seeks to address and whether the solution is appropriate in the circumstances, and we are not aware of any reputable body calling for this change. In relation to items (6) and (7), these are consequential changes that are contingent on the passage of item (3). Given we do not support item (3), we do not support these measures.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government will also be opposing the amendments moved by Senator Shoebridge on behalf of Senator Thorpe.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that Senator Thorpe's amendments on sheet 2089 be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ciccone</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Achoo!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I had not even moved it! Gesundheit!</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Shoebridge, please continue.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2096 together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, item 128, page 24 (after line 5), after subsection 32AAA(1), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1A) However, subsection (1) only applies if it is not reasonably practicable for persons who:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) have suitable qualifications and experience; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) are engaged under the <inline font-style="italic">Public Service Act 1999</inline>;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">to assist in the performance of the Inspector-General's functions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 1, item 128, page 24 (after line 12), after subsection 32AAB(1), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1A) However, subsection (1) only applies if it is not reasonably practicable for persons who:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) have suitable qualifications and experience; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) are engaged under the <inline font-style="italic">Public Service Act 1999</inline>;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">to assist in the performance of the Inspector-General's functions.</para></quote>
<para>These amendments are not to be sneezed at. These amendments, taken together, would provide important—and we say important for security reasons and for public administration reasons—restrictions on when IGIS can engage consulting services. We have seen one of the most unwholesome displays of avarice, conflict of interest and sheer greed from the consulting industry exposed in this parliament in the last six months. We have seen the scandalous behaviour of PwC breaching conflicts of interest. We've seen the gouging of KPMG, particularly in the defence sector, taking literally hundreds and hundreds of millions—the better part of $1.7 billion—of public defence funds and keeping it within its consulting business. I would suggest they were unscrupulously stripping funds out of the public sector wherever they can. Consultants can not only take the money in the first place—and we're talking billions of dollars—but consultant after consultant has used the information they're given in confidence, within the public sector, to squeeze other profits. In the case of PwC they shared it with their corporate clients to help them dodge tax. And we've seen it in relation to Deloitte, one of the favoured consultants used in the broader security apparatus by the Commonwealth government, to squeeze money—former Deloitte partners squeezing money for their business ventures. In particular we saw those leaked emails from Canberra consultant David Milo, sharing documents that he had obtained while working for Deloitte with the Australian military. He shared those with his clients, including sharing highly secure correspondence from the Vice Chief of the Defence Force about the ForceNet project in gross breach of security requirements and confidentiality requirements. This was potentially putting at peril the national security of Australia purely for narrow private profit, to get his next consultancy firm the contracts and the millions and millions of dollars of private and public money they thought they could squeeze by grossly abusing documents they'd obtained in confidence.</para>
<para>When it comes to the IGIS, it's hard to picture a body, the independent inspector of security services, which has a greater need to retain the integrity of its information—to retain the integrity of the documents it obtains from ASIO, AISIS or Defence—to retain the integrity of those documents in its systems and investigations. This bill and the act just provide for the standard consultancy provisions. The bill just says that whenever IGIS thinks they want to, they can just consult it out—to contract out and engage with consultants whenever they want to, with no limitations.</para>
<para>We're told by the opposition that they don't want to put limitations on what IGIS can do. Maybe they're comfortable with the behaviour of David Milo and Deloitte. Maybe they're comfortable with that. I will be surprised if they are but, if so, tell us! Maybe the government is comfortable with what PwC and Deloitte have done. But the Greens aren't. So we're proposing there be specific limitations on the appointment and use of consultants by IGIS. This is hardly radical. This simply says that IGIS can't engage consultants unless it's not reasonably practical for persons who have suitable qualifications and experience, and who are engaged in other public service actions, to do the work as public servants. Keep it in-house; keep it in the public service. Don't contract it out unless you bloody well need to! Surely we can agree on that?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister. Thank you, Senator Shoebridge for the contribution. We will be opposing this amendment. The bill should not be amended to restrict the use of contractors. Such amendments would be unique in the Australian Public Service and are unnecessary. The government has commenced its APS reform agenda and is committed to ensuring that the Australian Public Service embodies integrity; puts people and business at the centre of policy and services; is a model employer; and has the capability to do its job well.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendments on sheet 2096 be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
<para>Bill agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill reported without amendments.</para>
<para>The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Marielle Smith): It being 1.30 pm, we are moving to senators' statements.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY SENATORS</title>
        <page.no>14</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY SENATORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Azerbaijan</title>
          <page.no>14</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a long way from home, but I want to spend my two minutes today talking about the plight of Christian Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, a region which has been blockaded since 12 December 2022 by the government of Azerbaijan, and the impact that is having on the lives and the welfare of those Armenians who are trapped inside. The blockade occurring on the Lachin Corridor has been going on since mid-December last year. It has caught the attention of and has been the cause of a decision by the International Court of Justice, which made an order on 22 February this year, stating:</para>
<quote><para class="block">…the disruption on the Lachin Corridor has impeded the transfer of persons of Armenian national or ethnic origin hospitalized in Nagorno-Karabakh to medical facilities in Armenia for urgent medical care. The evidence also indicates that there have been hindrances to the importation into Nagorno-Karabakh of essential goods, causing shortages of food, medicine and other life-saving medical supplies.</para></quote>
<para>Both major parties in this place have called out the government of Azerbaijan for its unethical, illegal activity in blockading this community. Ninety-nine per cent of this community is Christian, which one cannot ignore as a factor in the decision that's being taken by the government of Azerbaijan. I support my colleagues Senator Simon Birmingham and, of course, the foreign minister, Senator Wong, in their calls, as part of a civilised and democratic Western world, to have the government of Azerbaijan remove this blockade, create peace and allow humanity to exist in a civilised way in this region, Nagorno-Karabakh, for the Armenian Christian community.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Emerald Secondary College</title>
          <page.no>14</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHITE</name>
    <name.id>IWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last week, I had the pleasure of visiting Emerald Secondary College in Melbourne's beautiful outer-eastern suburbs. Close to the iconic Puffing Billy Railway line, Emerald Secondary is a fantastic campus with several hundred students. I spoke with the year 11 and 12 legal studies classes about their curriculum, including my work in the Senate, how laws are made and the ever-fascinating Senate committee process. We spoke about how, in a year when Australians will vote on the referendum to enshrine an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament, the legal studies classes have a unique opportunity to experience democracy in action. The students' curiosity about the referendum process and the Voice to Parliament proposal was great to see. For a senator, there is nothing better than seeing our young people engaging in government and democracy, even if most of them can't vote yet. I also want to give a shout-out to the Parliamentary Education Office. On my visit to Emerald school, I took some of the resources provided by the Parliamentary Education Office, including a set of mini Constitutions as well as books which step out what the Senate is and what we actually get up to in this place. I can report back that they went down a treat, in particular the mini Constitutions, which I was surprisingly asked by the kids to autograph. You never know—perhaps one day they may be worth something! Good luck to the year 12 legal studies class at Emerald, who are now only days away from the beginning of their exams. The advice I gave them as they finish their formal school journey is a philosophy I've mentioned a few times in this place: you're never too old to learn new things, and take every opportunity in life that comes across to you. Thank you again to the Emerald school for having me. I look forward to coming back to catch up again soon.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Menopause</title>
          <page.no>15</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Menopause and perimenopause are not publicly spoken about much, but more needs to be done to understand their health and economic impacts on women and people who menstruate and the impacts on our economy. Menopause happens typically between the ages of 45 and 60, and perimenopause, which precedes it, can last for up to 10 years and begin as early as your 30s. Both can be mentally and physically debilitating. Eighty per cent of Australian women experience menopausal and perimenopausal symptoms that can range from mild to extremely severe. The financial impact can be profound for women as well as for their employers and the economy, as many women at the peak of their careers are leaving the workforce. Being forced to retire early exacerbates both the gender pay gap and the gender superannuation gap. The gendered cost of treatment is yet another financial burden that only women face, on top of the costs of a lifetime of menstruation and most likely being a primary caregiver to children and ageing parents. It's no wonder that women are retiring with significantly less than their male counterparts.</para>
<para>The Senate inquiry that I initiated into reproductive health care recommended research into the impact of reproductive health on women's participation in the workforce and the adequacy of existing leave entitlements. We eagerly await the government's response to that recommendation. Nationally, we also need more awareness, both by GPs and by patients, of the symptoms of both perimenopause and menopause, as well as awareness of the various treatments available to women experiencing them and whether those treatments are affordable. At the moment, Flinders University is running a survey led by Professor Erin Morton for people to share their menopause and perimenopause experiences to help build the evidence base. Please share your experiences on what's called the VITAL peri-/menopause registry. I will raise this issue in the Senate again.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Radioactive Waste Management Facility</title>
          <page.no>15</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE</name>
    <name.id>263528</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to talk about the situation for the Kimba radioactive waste facility in South Australia, where the views of the local community were ignored by this Labor government after years of work and consultation. I recently met in Port Augusta with Indigenous leader Malcolm 'Tiger' McKenzie, who has been ignored by this Labor government and has asked me once again to raise the issue in the Senate.</para>
<para>This facility would have been the first National Radioactive Waste Management Facility and would have played an important role in safely storing the waste from Australia's crucial nuclear medicine industry. Consultation with the local community started under the coalition government, and two of my colleagues—first Senator Canavan and then Mr Keith Pitt—as ministers engaged with locals to select the site and ensure that it had community support. When he was the minister for resources, Keith Pitt met with the representatives of the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation, and the former government engaged with the corporation numerous times throughout the process to ensure that their voices were being heard. The coalition government offered to support the Barngarla people to undertake ballots to gauge community support. When a ballot was undertaken by the local council in the Kimba community, it found that most were in favour of the project. Over 61 per cent of residents of the Kimba area supported the site. Sixty per cent of local businesses supported the site. One hundred per cent of neighbours who shared a boundary supported the site.</para>
<para>But the Albanese government have walked away from the proposal, abandoning the site with no alternative solution. They've picked and chosen who they would listen to rather than taking into account the will of the broader community. This is a failure of the minister and a failure of the Albanese government.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National TAFE Day</title>
          <page.no>15</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Tomorrow marks National TAFE Day, and it's an opportunity to celebrate our public TAFE system. Last week I saw firsthand how free TAFE is changing lives. At Gippsland TAFE in Morwell, I met with students in early childhood education, in allied health and in plumbing. Every single one of these students was studying for free, and they were loving it, including Shye. Shye is a mother of five and a grandmother of 11. She was retired until she heard about free TAFE. She told me that she still had more to give and that it's never too late to retrain and start again. So she started again, enrolling in early childhood education. Shye said she couldn't think of a profession that's more important right now. So free TAFE is not only changing Shye's life; it's giving our children the best start in life, because they'll have more passionate and dedicated educators just like Shye.</para>
<para>Our enrolments in free TAFE keep growing. We've already beaten our national target of 180,000 enrolments, with more than 200,000 students taking part. More than 60 per cent are women. They're women who are eager to re-enter the workforce and who want to retrain and give back but have held back because they just couldn't afford it. Free TAFE is a game changer, and that's why we're funding 300,000 more free TAFE places over the next few years.</para>
<para>I'd like to give a shout-out to the students at Morwell and their fantastic TAFE teachers for making me so welcome. It's no wonder that Gippsland TAFE was named Large Training Provider of the Year at this year's Victorian Training Awards. Congratulations again to Gippsland TAFE. It's the students and teachers at Gippsland TAFE that fill me with hope for our future, because free TAFE is changing lives.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>16</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The PM was recently caught out by a classic cost-of-living got-you question, this time at the ALP conference. The Prime Minister was asked the price of petrol, and he said $1.80. On that day it was $1.96. On the same day, Tasmanians were paying 20c more than that. It's not only petrol that's more expensive in rural and regional areas; it's pretty much everything. Australians living in the country can pay up to three times more for fresh food. Last week I paid six bucks for a small cauliflower, and right now it's in season. We're supposed to be the food bowl of the nation, down there. Go figure.</para>
<para>The average Australian family spends up to a third of their pay on fresh food. That's gone up seven per cent, but for Australians living in rural and regional areas prices have gone up by 40 per cent. We're a big country. Freight costs and the power of the big supermarkets to set prices are absolutely hammering families in rural and regional areas. Did you see how much profit those big supermarkets made last year? The mafia is how I like to refer to them, because that's what they are: price-gouging mafia. One billion bucks. Even though gate prices for lamb and beef are going down, Coles and Woolies' profits are going up because they keep charging more and more.</para>
<para>What's the red party doing over here? What are you doing about these big supermarkets going after our rural and regional families? Absolutely nothing. You've done absolutely nothing to reduce prices. You haven't bothered to put your foot down on their head. You've done absolutely nothing to go at those damn supermarkets—nothing at all. It's in your hands and you've done nothing. They're doing the same to our truckies. They're pushing them to the brink while increasing their profits.</para>
<para>Many Australians may not know that the consumer price is based on the price in the cities, not the rural and regional areas. People are moving out there because they can't afford to live in the cities. Go figure it out and start doing something for those people suffering in rural and regional areas. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Live Animal Exports</title>
          <page.no>16</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BROCKMAN</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There's a shadow hanging over the agricultural industry, particularly in my home state of Western Australia. A recent survey right across Australia found that in the east the most important things happening to farmers were global economic conditions and the weather. These are pretty usual things that farmers see affecting them year to year. In the west, it's a completely different story. In the west, the most serious thing that farmers had to face was the policies of state and federal Labor governments. The most serious consideration they had on their agenda was state and federal Labor government policies. One, in particular, will have devastating consequences for my home state of Western Australia and especially the agricultural industry. That is the government's policy to ban the export of live sheep.</para>
<para>We have a delegation in the building from Western Australia, from right along the supply chain. It's not just farmers. We have the sheep producers, we have the wool producers, we have the shearing industry association and we have the livestock transporters association, but it's not just those groups that are affected. It's also the shed hands, the vets, the agronomists, the stockies, the feed producers and the equipment manufacturers. The flow-on effects of this Labor policy to ban live exports in my home state of WA will be extraordinary. It's not based on any science. It's not based on any evidence. In fact, it's based on a set of circumstances from 5½ or six years ago, which have been shown to be highly dubious and which the industry has responded to magnificently. The industry has responded—why won't the government? <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>We Are Womxn</title>
          <page.no>16</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PAYMAN</name>
    <name.id>300707</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last month I had the pleasure of meeting Kate Raston, Nicolette Beard and Alexis Pallister, the incredible founders of We Are Womxn. We Are Womxn is an evidence-based, trauma-informed educational organisation that empowers young women across Western Australia. The organisation is leading the way in teaching young women about autonomy, consent and body image. I'm not lying when I say that We Are Womxn is absolutely slaying.</para>
<para>In just two years, the organisation has visited over 40 schools and empowered more than 10,000 young women through educational workshops, honest conversations and the creation of safe spaces. We Are Womxn's interactive curriculum and workshops are meticulously designed and can be tailored to young women in any environment, whether that be primary school, secondary school, work, university or the wider community. Their positive impact has been immeasurable. From the Wheatbelt and the South West to the Pilbara, We Are Womxn is empowering women across WA. I encourage all WA schools and universities to invite We Are Womxn to deliver one of their impactful workshops.</para>
<para>It is so inspiring to see an organisation that is run by young women for young women that is breaking down barriers, destigmatising women's experiences and challenging patriarchal norms. As a young woman in politics, instilling confidence, capacity and bravery in other young women is a cause that is very important to me, and I'm always proud to highlight the important work of Western Australian organisations. Organisations like We Are Womxn are critical to support and empower the next generation of women. I congratulate Kate, Nicolette and Alexis on their incredible achievements so far.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>17</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARUQI</name>
    <name.id>250362</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Our broken economic system has to be fixed. It is a system that protects the wealthy and creates a merry-go-round of money amongst the elite while ordinary people are squeezed further and further. We know that the cost-of-living crisis is not because of wage increases; it is because of greedy corporations squeezing every last cent out of people who are already suffering. Inflation is being driven by corporate profiteering. Coles, Woolworths, Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank have all posted billions of dollars in profits. The rich are getting richer while the poor suffer in a system rigged against them at every step of the way, from skyrocketing inflation to tax regimes that favour the rich. There's a bigger wealth gap than we have ever seen in this country.</para>
<para>People are going without food, and Coles just raked in over $1 billion in profits. People can't buy fresh food, and Woolies just posted over $1.6 billion in profits—the highest margin ever recorded for the groceries division. While people are losing their homes to outrageous interest rate hikes, the Commonwealth Bank raked in $10 billion of profit over the past year. That is what corporate profiteering off the back of people who are doing it tough looks like. Qantas got a $2.7 billion taxpayer funded handout during COVID and still sacked 8,000 people. The CEO has made $15 million. They have raised airfares by 20 per cent.</para>
<para>How is this acceptable to us? It is utterly and absolutely obscene. Corporate profits need to be reined in. Tax the rich, tax the superprofits and put money back into the community, where it belongs.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Oil and Gas Exploration</title>
          <page.no>17</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yesterday the University of Sydney released a new report on what we know today about the impacts of oil and gas development on human health. We now know a lot. We have incredibly rich evidence from the US, where over 17 million people live near at least one fracking well. What we see in these communities is a long list of harms—more severe asthma in children; higher hospitalisation and death rates due to heart attacks, heart failure and respiratory disease; increased depression and anxiety, especially among the young and pregnant women; higher rates of miscarriage and stillbirth; higher rates of severe birth defects; and increased risk of childhood leukaemia.</para>
<para>The evidence could not be more clear, yet the government is giving $1.5 billion to enable a petrochemical processing facility on Darwin Harbour, just three kilometres from the suburbs of Darwin. It does so knowing that it will open up fracking in the Beetaloo basin, exposing an even greater more remote population to health risks. From the evidence yesterday, it looks like we're paying for new cases of childhood leukaemia—taxpayer money is going to a project that will increase the risk of leukaemia if you live in Darwin. It is time we had an inquiry to look at the evidence and look at what taxpayers are buying for this $1.5 billion investment. We must look at the evidence in the interests of people and future generations. I urge the Labor government to put the future of young people and future generations ahead of short-term profits for the gas industry.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Children's Content Summit</title>
          <page.no>17</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVEY</name>
    <name.id>281697</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to reflect on what was a fantastic opportunity to participate as a panellist last week at the inaugural Australian Children's Content Summit in Coffs Harbour. This fantastic event, established by a group of children's content producers, brought together over 250 creative minds, including producers, writers and directors from Australia and beyond, including the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and representatives from America and Hollywood. It demonstrated a strong commitment to promoting and supporting Australian children's content. This initiative aims to place Australian content at the forefront, making a lasting impact on our young audiences. The summit also celebrated the wealth of stories that regional Australia contributes to our creative landscape, with its diverse landscapes, scenery and stories and its unique authenticity.</para>
<para>Children's content goes well beyond entertainment. It serves as a source of education and inspiration, influencing young minds profoundly. Australian content creators bear the responsibility of not just engaging but enlightening the next generation. In this ever-changing landscape, we must ensure that our screens showcase a wide range of stories, perspectives and ideas, shaping the values and aspirations of future generations.</para>
<para>I'm dedicated to championing children's content and to creating a brighter and more informed future. Let us ensure that the richness of regional Australia continues to shine on our screens worldwide.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Queensland: Forestry Industry</title>
          <page.no>18</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in support of Queensland's timber workers and the regional communities which rely on this renewable industry. The 22nd of last month was National Forestry Day, and I want to highlight what forestry means to the Australian economy. It contributes almost $4 billion to the state's economy every year. It directly employs 11,600 workers and indirectly supports another 11,600 jobs. About 70 per cent of these jobs are in regional areas. Forestry in Queensland harvests about 2.7 million cubic metres of softwood from plantations, 280,000 cubic metres of native hardwood and 120,000 cubic metres of native cypress. Fewer than one in 1,000 native trees in Queensland are harvested every year. That's the reality which Green extremists will never acknowledge as they attempt to shut down one of the most environmentally sustainable industries in Australia.</para>
<para>The rising cost of materials is one of the factors driving our housing crisis and the collapse of building companies. Forestry provides a lot of the raw material we need for housing, so we should be working to ensure Australian forestry is secure and sustainable. The last thing we should do is import timber from countries which do not apply our high environmental standards.</para>
<para>Forestry in Australia needs more efficient supply chains, lower energy costs and an ongoing supply of skilled workers. Forestry in Australia needs resource security. That means continued access to native forests and more plantations. Don't believe the Greens and their fearmongering about old-growth forests. Under our laws, they can't be touched. One Nation is proud to support our forestry sector in Queensland and Australia, and in turn it also helps to keep costs down for homeowners and the building sector.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tasmania: Forestry Industry</title>
          <page.no>18</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On 14 August this year a photo was taken of a log truck just outside Maydena in southern Tasmania, and it clearly shows a single tree on the back of a log truck. Photos like this are an obscenity.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKim, please resume your seat. You know it's not acceptable to have props in the Senate. I appreciate you're passionate and you want to make a point, but please adhere to the standing orders. You may continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Photos like this are an absolute obscenity: a single trunk of a magnificent forest giant on the back of a log truck. This tree was slaughtered in coupe FO020B in the Upper Florentine Valley in southern Tasmania, right on the boundaries of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. The pathetic excuse given by Forestry Tasmania was that this tree presented an access or a safety risk. Logging trees like this in forests like the Upper Florentine Valley in the middle of a climate and biodiversity crisis at a global scale is an absolute obscenity. It is a crime against our climate and a crime against nature. These are precious carbon-rich forests. They are home to beautiful, unique creatures, many sliding towards extinction thanks to the native forest logging industry.</para>
<para>I want to give a shout-out to the brave activists from the Bob Brown Foundation, the Wilderness Society, the Grassroots Action Network Tasmania and the Derwent Valley environment group who've been in these coupes, particularly coupe FO020B, to protect what is left of this beautiful, precious forest. There have been seven arrests in recent times, including three yesterday. These activists and forest defenders are heroes, and they deserve the thanks of everyone here for standing up for these magnificent forests.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>New South Wales: Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>18</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>M56</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I reminded the Senate recently that Western Sydney needed to be careful about Labor turning their backs on us and taking our communities for granted again. Predictably, Labor is doing this at state and federal levels—a diabolical combination for our area. We know that federal Labor commissioned an expert panel on Western Sydney infrastructure, kept its report secret—so much for transparency!—and then ignored its recommendations in their budget. From media reports, it seems the report made important recommendations that would address the high growth, high infrastructure needs of Western Sydney communities.</para>
<para>We know that Labor also commissioned a 90-day infrastructure review. It is now over 100 days and counting, with a third of the 100 New South Wales projects facing the axe being Western Sydney projects. The last budget considered neither the projects under the 90-day review nor the projects for which they'd specifically commissioned an expert panel. What confidence can Western Sydney have that this government has their interests at heart? Zero.</para>
<para>What about New South Wales Labor? They commissioned a review into the vital Metro West, which will transform Western Sydney public transport—connectivity, liveability and sustainability—but its findings won't be delivered until October, after the September budget. Is anyone seeing a pattern? The New South Wales budget is a test of Labor's commitment to Western Sydney. Will they deliver on the previously announced WestInvest projects at the Westmead education campus, the community health hubs at Liverpool and Glenfield, the cooling improvements at 84 Western Sydney schools and the key WestInvest road upgrades from the Hawkesbury to the M7? We'll be watching on 19 September.</para>
<para>I'm confident of one thing: Labor in government has always taken Western Sydney for granted. It has built nothing and done nothing. They'll end up treating Western Sydney residents like second-class citizens and expect our communities to settle for second best. Well, we won't do that.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rural Road Safety Month</title>
          <page.no>19</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CAROL BROWN</name>
    <name.id>F49</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>September is Rural Road Safety Month. With crashes on rural roads overrepresented in fatalities in the national road toll, it's an important month for all Australians. Rural Road Safety Month is a national community based initiative from the Australian Road Safety Foundation that highlights the additional risks of driving on or around rural roads. With higher speeds and, commonly, driver error or risky behaviour, be it intentional or unintentional, the risk of driving on rural roads is increased.</para>
<para>In the first three days of Rural Road Safety Month, 13 people were killed on Australian roads. That's 13 people who never got to say goodbye to their family, 13 people who will not see another day, and many more friends and family who will be left with an irreplaceable void and heartbreaking grief. But, unfortunately, in the past 12 months, from July 2022 to July 2023, 1,234 deaths on our roads have occurred. It's people like Jaylan, who, at the young age of 18 years, was killed at high speed. For his father, Michael, a police officer of 24 years, life has changed forever. It is people like 21-year-old Emily, who was killed on a rural road outside Rockhampton in 2020. Her father, Adrian, was forever devastated.</para>
<para>Every death on our roads is a tragic, incomprehensible loss of life. There is no denying that it has been an horrific year on our roads. Road safety is a shared responsibility. We, along with every other state and territory, are committed to Vision Zero—that is, zero deaths and zero injuries in road crashes by 2050.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time for senators' statements has now expired and we'll move to question time.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>19</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workplace Relations</title>
          <page.no>19</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Watt. Minister, in the more than 700 pages of the 'closing the loopholes' bill and explanatory memorandum introduced to parliament yesterday, can you identify one measure that will improve productivity in Australian businesses?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Henderson</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What a disgrace this legislation is! Appalling—and you're smiling!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Henderson, can we have a question time where you don't constantly interject? I'm calling you to order.</para>
<para>Government senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order on my right! Minister Watt.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, President. I think that's a record, even for Senator Henderson; I hadn't even opened my mouth and apparently I was a disgrace!</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cash</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Compared to you, Senator Watt!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It didn't take Senator Cash and the opposition long to do what they love doing most, which is to keep workers' wages low.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, please resume your seat.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Wong, order! Minister Watt, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As I was saying, it didn't take the opposition very long to revert to type, to revert to their happiest place, which is keeping wages low and keeping productivity low. Because of course—</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Watt, please resume your seat. I'm waiting for order. Minister Watt.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>They don't like being reminded—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Henderson</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Stop smiling!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm smiling because we have a government now that is actually committed to getting wages moving again. And do you know what? That's a good thing!</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Order on my left! Minister Watt.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I think it says a lot about the opposition that rather than smiling about workers' wages going up, they frown, they scowl and they yell. That's because the one thing that—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cash</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Real wages continue to go backwards!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Order! This is disrespectful of the Senate. I have had to call order constantly and we are two minutes in. Minister Watt.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>So, yes, I am smiling about the fact that we've got wages moving again. I am smiling about the fact that already this government's workplace relations reforms—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Henderson, I named you at the beginning of question time and you have just continued to disregard my requests that you refrain from constant interjections. Minister Watt.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>So, yes, I am in my happy place, and I think that the Labor Party are in our happy place, where we're actually getting wages moving again. And it turns out that's what the people of Australia wanted! In fact already, due to the reforms that—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Cash.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cash</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, my point of order is in relation to relevance. The question—</para>
<para>Government senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Just a moment, Senator Cash, please resume your seat. Calling for order also applies to the right-hand side of the chamber! I have a senator on her feet, raising a point of order. She is entitled to be heard in silence. Senator Cash, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cash</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I have a point of order in relation to direct relevance. The question was very specific: I asked the minister to identify one measure in the bill that will improve productivity in Australian businesses.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Cash. There has been so much disorder since you asked your question, I think it has been very hard for the minister to actually get to the substance. I will remind him of your question, but I would also ask that senators on both sides of the chamber listen in silence. Minister Watt.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash, I don't have to refer to one measure only in this bill that will lift productivity; the entire package is going to lift productivity in the workplace. That's because something that eluded the opposition for the 10 years they were in office was that cooperative workplaces are productive workplaces.</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Cooperative, safe workplaces are productive workplaces.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash, I just called the chamber to order, and the minute the minister was on his feet you continued to interject. Minister Watt.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>But I'm happy that at last, after 10 years of government, it took returning to opposition for the opposition to actually care about productivity, because their uncooperative, conflict based workplace relations system delivered the lowest decade of productivity growth that we have had in 60 years. That's what your program of workplace relations did: low productivity, low wages. We're turning that around.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash, a first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, in the more than 700 pages of the closing-loopholes bill, can you identify one measure that will make it easier for Australian businesses to employ more workers?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In fact, there are provisions within this bill that seek to treat workers who have been mistreated for the past 10 years under the opposition to receive employee-like conditions. I understand that your life's mission is to keep workers' wages low. I understand that your economic policy was to deliberately keep wages low. Australians voted against that, and they kicked you out.</para>
<para>At some point you've got to recognise that the party that had a low-wages policy lost the last election. The people of Australia didn't want your 10 years of low wage growth, low productivity and conflict based workplaces. They voted for cooperative workplaces that were going to lift wages, and we're already doing it. Even in the time we've been in power we've had the strongest jobs growth for the first year of any Australian government. We've created half a million jobs, 85 per cent of them full-time, and wages are growing at their fastest rate for a decade—and we're only getting started. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash, a second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>How much extra in costs will the bill add to Australian businesses? And how much of that do you expect them to pass on to consumers?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's good to have the scare campaign from Senator Cash rolling out again, because remember what she said about the last package of workplace relations reform? The last time we did industrial relations reform in this chamber, what did Senator Cash say? She said it was going to take us back to the Dark Ages. Now, I don't know about you, but I'm not seeing anyone running around there in chain mail, in body armour, like in the Dark Ages. I'm seeing workers getting paid what they deserve.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cash</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Again, it is a point of order in relation to direct relevance. The question was in relation to how much this bill will raise cots on businesses and, in relation to those costs, how much the government expects them to go on to consumers. It was a very specific question.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Cash. I will remind the minister of your question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Let's put all this in context. As a percentage of the total wages budget of Australia, these changes will add one-tenth of one per cent of what wages are in Australia. And, unlike what the opposition are saying, this is not a cost to the economy; this is a cost to the small number of businesses that are underpaying their workers by exploiting the loopholes that the last government left. This money won't be taken out of the economy. It will go into workers' pockets, where it belongs, so that they can actually deal with cost-of-living pressures, pay their bills and get up on their feet. Workers who are currently being underpaid will have more money to spend in their local communities, and we support that. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>21</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Tomorrow the ABS will release the national accounts for the June quarter, providing the most up-to-date snapshot of how the Australian economy is performing and how Australian households and businesses are responding to current conditions. Can the minister please update the Senate on the challenges facing our economy and how the Albanese government's economic plan is working to ensure that Australians are provided with targeted and carefully calibrated cost-of-living relief investments, and how important it is to support economic growth now and into the future and to repair the budget over time?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Walsh for the question and for her leadership of the Senate Economics Committee. It's good to get a question on the economy. The government's highest priority is of course rolling out billions of dollars in cost-of-living relief—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, please resume your seat. Order!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKenzie. Order! Minister Gallagher, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>in ways that take pressure off inflation and support the economy. Today during question time, of course, we will have the Reserve Bank decision, but the national accounts will be released tomorrow, and we will expect to get an assessment of the impacts of the increases in interest rates, the high-but-moderating inflation and some of the continuing global uncertainty and the impact that is having on the economy. We are seeing welcome progress in the fight against inflation. Higher interest rates that started increasing in May last year, before the election, have impacted, particularly on mortgaged households, and are slowing the economy. National accounts are likely to show the combined impact of the higher interest rates and that global uncertainty.</para>
<para>We understand that Australians are doing it tough, which is why our main priority focus has been on providing targeted cost-of-living relief in the way that doesn't add to inflation and in a way that the budget can afford. That cost-of-living package includes providing assistance across the board in support for those who receive rent assistance; for those who are using the childcare, early education and care system; for those accessing cheaper medicines, or needing scripts filled every month, or every two months under some of the changes recently; the fee-free TAFE, which has been such an incredible success; and of course support to reduce the impact of energy increases through energy bills.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Walsh, a first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>How important is it that the government balances the challenges facing the economy, both here and globally, while at the same time working to strengthen the economy and support Australian households, particularly those that are doing it tough? How will the government's targeted cost-of-living relief measures support households and the economy in the coming months?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Walsh for the supplementary. We've seen in recent economic data that Australians are pulling back on their spending, dipping into their savings, and we will see a lot of the cost-of-living relief measures flow into the economy over the next few months. Some of them started on 1 July but some of those important supports around income support are starting in September. I would say that the inflation data for July was very instructive. The ABS showed clearly the impact that our energy rebates are having on energy bills for people in contributing to CPI. If we exclude the impact of rebates from the 23 July figures, electricity prices would have recorded a monthly increase of 19.2 per cent as opposed to six per cent. Let's remember, who voted against those rebates? All those over here. That is right. All of them voted to keep electricity bills higher than they needed to be.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Walsh, a second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The final budget outcome will be published at the end of this month, and for the first time in 15 years the government will deliver a budget surplus. Why is the government's fiscal strategy so important when it comes to supporting the economy going forward?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Walsh for that question. We have flagged through the budget and indicated that we were expecting a surplus for the 2022-23 year. It will come in significantly higher than was forecast at this year's budget, and we will be the first government in 15 years to actually deliver a budget surplus—not promise one, not get mugs printed, not run around saying how great we are that we expect to deliver one but actually deliver a budget surplus, reduce the amount of debt we have to borrow and reduce interest payments for a generation over time because of our fiscal management.</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Minister Gallagher, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I know they hate it, President, but we've returned 87 per cent of tax receipt upgrades to the budget, we found $40 billion of savings across two budgets. How many did you find? Zero. There were zero savings from those opposite. These careful steps mean we will deliver a strong budget surplus for the 2022-23 year.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aviation Industry</title>
          <page.no>22</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is for the minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Yesterday the Western Australian Labor Premier, Roger Cook, added his voice to the chorus of state Labor leaders who have questioned this government's decision to block Qatar Airways from providing more services to Perth and Western Australians. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">"At the moment we are particularly disadvantaged by the lack of competition in our domestic aviation market, and the protections that Qantas enjoy as our so-called national carrier …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"Qatar Airways kept running during COVID, bringing home Western Australians and keeping our freight moving …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"My government has been clear that we want more routes connecting Perth, and the cultural and economic benefits those flights bring."</para></quote>
<para>Minister, why have some of your Labor colleagues seen the light and why are the Prime Minister and his government burying their heads in the sand when it comes to this decision?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The point I would make is that, under the arrangements that are in place, Qatar Airways can add more seats into Australia today and they are welcome to do so. We support—</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Order! Order on my left! I should not have to call order repeatedly. It's disrespectful. Minister, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We support sustainable growth of Australia's aviation sector. Right now, as the Senator would know, Qatar Airways can fly as many planes as they like into Adelaide, Avalon, Cairns, Canberra and the Gold Coast.</para>
<para>An opposition senator: What about Perth?</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm coming to Perth.</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator McKenzie?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKenzie</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On a point of order of direct relevance. I asked the minister about Perth and, specifically, the comments by the Labor Premier about the government's decision about Qatar Airways.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister is being relevant. Minister Wong, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I make two points. One is: yes, Qatar Airways could fly bigger planes into Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and Brisbane. Other airlines have also added capacity—Cathay Pacific, Singapore Airlines and China Southern Airlines have announced new flights—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Cash, it applies to you. Minister Wong, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, please resume your seat. Senator McKenzie, you've asked the question, you raised the point of order. I've called the minister to her feet again. I've called the Senate to order several times. And the minute the Minister stands, you interject. Minister, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I was asked about the Premier's quote, and the Premier—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hughes, points of order also include you. Minister, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I was asked about competition, and in addition to the points I have made about Cathay Pacific, Singapore Airlines and China Southern Airlines, I would make the point that these are national interest arrangements between governments, and in relation to competition, it isn't a free-for-all. There is no better person to talk about that than former minister McCormack, who said on 29 August, 'When I became DPM and transport minister in February 2018, I made a decision to put on hold an application from Qatar Airways.'</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm unsurprised you want to interrupt the truth—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Wong, please resume your seat. Order! Senator McKenzie?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKenzie</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On direct relevance again, Madam President. This minister has not gone near Premier Cook's comments, has not gone near standing up for Western Australians and the additional flights they seek.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKenzie, you've made your point of order. You asked about the government's decision in relation to Qatar Airlines, as it relates to Perth. I believe the minister is being relevant. I will continue to listen. The question is being answered. Minister Wong?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I was asked about a quote which referenced competition, and that's what I'm talking about. I'm also talking about your colleague the member for Riverina, who introduced a safeguards article to the Australia-Qatar air services agreement because he was concerned about undercutting other operators or abuse of market power. This updated deal was only finalised in 2022. We agree with that principle. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKenzie, a first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>McKENZIE (—) (): The minister for transport and a number of ministers in the Albanese government have said that the decision to block Qatar Airways' application for additional flights to Australia was made in the national interest. Can this minister outline what exactly the national interest grounds were for this decision?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The first point I make is that the minister has made clear publicly that, first, she's the decision-maker and that she considers a range of factors when determining whether an expansion of bilateral air rights is in our national interest. That's consistent with what Mr McCormack said today. He said, 'You can't have an airline coming in from overseas'—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Birmingham</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>President—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm unsurprised you want to shut me down on this, Senator Birmingham. I'm unsurprised you're embarrassed by this.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Birmingham?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Birmingham</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>President, a point of order on direct relevance. This goes to the very issue and the heart of government accountability here. The minister was asked specifically to define the grounds that were in the national interest—not to go and quote past decisions or former ministers but to explain this government's decisions, how it determined the grounds and how those grounds are in the national interest. She should be drawn to that very specific question asked by Senator McKenzie.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Birmingham. I remind the minister of Senator McKenzie's first supplementary.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My answer is the one I gave, which is that the minister considers a range of factors when determining whether an expansion of bilateral air rights is in our national interest. That is not unusual. It is not unusual to have a national interest test in legislation, and there are discretionary powers in legislation across government.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Birmingham</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Cite what those grounds are in the national interest.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The question has been asked, and the minister is responding.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's not unusual for there to be discretion in a ministerial decision, it's not unusual for national interest to be the reference point in that decision, and it's not unusual for a range of factors to be taken into account. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Scarr</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It is unusual that you can't tell us what they are.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Scarr, order! Senator McKenzie, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's very frustrating, Senator Scarr. The CEO of Flight Centre said on Wednesday: 'I think it's the most ridiculous decision I've ever seen. This is a significant blow. No other part of the tourism and aviation sector can rationalise it.' Former ACCC chairman Rod Sims also said, 'If there was a time to allow new entrants in this is it.' Minister, if all our major airlines, except one, and Labor states, competition experts and tourism industries say, 'Let them fly,' who is the government really protecting when it says this decision was in the national interest? <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm asked about the reasons why a government would make this decision, and I refer again to the very experienced former transport minister Mr McCormack, who gave this rationale, which I think might be instructive for Senator McKenzie:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… you can't have an airline coming in from overseas and just undercutting to the point where Australian jobs are at risk and Australian airlines are placed at a disadvantage.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We can't have an airline with very deep pockets undercut, undercut, undercut and … people go to them as opposed to an airline that may—</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Wong, please resume your seat. Senator McKenzie?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKenzie</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A point of order on direct relevance. Who is this government protecting when it claims the decision was in the national interest?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKenzie, just go clearly to the point of order. I will remind the minister of the question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I am surprised—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Birmingham, order—please.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Birmingham</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Where's the actual rationale for the decision?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Birmingham, I've just called you to order. Minister Wong.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I am surprised by the disrespect that those opposite hold for Mr McCormack. I would have thought he actually has been a transport minister, and his comments today in the <inline font-style="italic">Australian</inline> perhaps are a reminder to his party and his coalition friends about the real world in which these— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Climate Change</title>
          <page.no>25</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Wong. Last week the environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, approved yet another coalmine. This year alone, the minister has approved five coalmines that create up to 150 million tonnes of pollution and emissions. Our environment laws are clearly broken. They do not enforce a requirement that the minister consider the climate impacts. Under these laws, how many more coalmines will the environment minister approve?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the senator for her question. I am assuming this is an approval under the EPBC Act. That wasn't indicated in the question, but I will make that assumption.</para>
<para>The statistics I have are that the state of play in relation to coal projects is: approved, three; cancelled three. There are obviously a range of renewables, with 11 projects approved and 104 in the EPBC approval system.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">An incident having occurred in the chamber—</inline></para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I reckon that's Senator Sterle. I know that ring. We've been friends a long time.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Hughes</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Making more sense than anything else we've heard so far!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll take the interjection, Senator. But I would make the point—and I appreciate you have a view—that the legislation that the parliament has passed provides Minister Plibersek with a discretion within the statutory framework, and any decision the minister makes is a decision that is consistent with the legislation that is before her. I appreciate that the Greens political party have a particular view about resources projects, and that's their view. The government recognises that resources are an important part of the Australian economy, and we also recognise that the transition to renewables is something that has to be given effect and implemented with important and clear policy decisions, domestically as well as internationally. Unlike some, we don't have the ability to simply call for something and assume that energy markets will magically transform overnight. It's the hard work that we are doing, and that's what Minister Bowen is engaged with.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hanson-Young, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Eighteen years ago to the very day, on 5 September 2005, Anthony Albanese MP, before he was Prime Minister, introduced a bill to fix the environment laws, a climate trigger bill, because he knew that our environment laws were broken. The climate crisis has gotten worse. When will this Prime Minister dust off his old bill and introduce a climate trigger?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What I would say is—what was the date? 2005? Well, there you go. There are people who would get to vote today who had only just been born at that time, and I would say that what we—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ruston!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't need to filibuster. You interrupt us enough so you don't get many questions. We don't have to do anything.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, hang on. You just had a go at me, and when I respond that's personal?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Wong, I'll take you back to the question.</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Oh, right. Okay. So, when you're saying it, it's fine. When I'm doing it, it's personal. That's an interesting double standard.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Hanson-Young?</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order on my left!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Hanson-Young</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A point of order, President: the clock has been running. I understand that Senator Penny Wong is being distracted over here, but I would like the answer to my question: when will this government introduce a climate trigger?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hanson-Young, I did call the minister back to the question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm happy for the clock to be reset. Senator Hanson-Young, the point I was making before the interjection is that this was some time ago. The Prime Minister, obviously, in 2005 was responding to the circumstances as he assessed them in his role then. We have made the same assessment now, and that has resulted in the policy that we took to the election of very substantial reductions—very ambitious reductions—in Australia's emissions between now and 2030, as well as a net zero commitment and the policies that will transition the Australian economy. Unlike the Greens, and I appreciate you have a different view, we actually have to do the hard yards of implementing that. We are an emissions intensive economy, and changing our economic base, our economic structure, in the way that this implies is a tough thing to do. It's also the right thing to do for the future, for future jobs and the sorts of jobs that will thrive in a net zero— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hanson-Young, a second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, does the government believe that environmental approval should consider the climate impacts on the environment?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government is of the view that climate change is the challenge of our generation, and the government is of the view that the best way to deal with our response to that is through the policy framework that I have outlined earlier. So that has been the approach that the government has taken. That is the approach that we took to the Australian people, where we laid out a very ambitious plan to reduce emissions, to increase renewables and to transition our economy.</para>
<para>I'd make this point. This is not just for the reasons of the imperative of climate change. It's also for the imperative of future jobs. The vast majority of the global economy has moved to net zero by 2050. What that means is that to thrive in the decades ahead our children and grandchildren will have to work with industries that are of value in that economy. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice</title>
          <page.no>26</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GROGAN</name>
    <name.id>296331</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Can the minister please remind the Senate how and why the proposal for the Voice to Parliament was developed, why it will improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and how it will save money and make our country stronger?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Grogan for her question. On 14 October, every Australian will have a once-in-a-generation chance to bring our country together and to change it for the better, to vote for recognition and listening so we can get better results. You see, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians want the same things for their children as everyone else does. They want them to be healthy. They want them to do well at school. They want them to get a good job. They want them to have the best opportunities they can. And that is what we're all saying yes to.</para>
<para>The call for the Voice did not come from politicians in this chamber. It came directly from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people after years of work and discussions across the country. Nearly 250 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, leaders and elders endorsed the Uluru Statement from the Heart in 2017, and it says, 'We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future.' This is a modest ask of recognition of this land's First Peoples in the Constitution through a Voice to the Parliament, a voice to help practical progress in health, education, employment and housing to make sure governments make better decisions and spend money wisely. All this is needed because of the challenges facing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people: a life expectancy eight years shorter than that for non-Indigenous Australians, children almost twice as likely to die before their first birthday, a suicide rate twice as high, and fewer opportunities for education and training.</para>
<para>Governments of both political persuasions with good intentions have spent billions trying to deal with these issues, but we have not achieved lasting improvement. The Voice is the chance to fix this. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Grogan, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GROGAN</name>
    <name.id>296331</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister. There are some alarming facts in there that we should all be deeply mindful of. Can the minister please explain to the Senate why this referendum is on constitutional recognition through a Voice to Parliament rather than on recognition alone?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The ask from the overwhelming majority of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is for a referendum for constitutional recognition through a Voice to Parliament. Now Mr Dutton is out there talking about his referendum. He's out there saying he supports a referendum, just not this referendum. He supports a voice but just not this voice. It's really clear yet again: we see Mr Dutton playing political games because his political strategy, tried and true, is to try to build himself up by tearing everything else down.</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Order on my left! Minister Wong, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's why he says no to everything, even when it is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to bring our country together and change it for the better; even when he knows this closes the door on better outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister. Senator Grogan, a second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GROGAN</name>
    <name.id>296331</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the minister for that response.</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Grogan, please resume your seat. Senator Hughes, I have called the chamber to order. I had a senator asking a question, and the loudest voice in the chamber was yours. Senator Grogan, please begin the question again.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GROGAN</name>
    <name.id>296331</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the minister. That really has cleared it up for me. I thought I was a bit mad thinking there was a proposal for a different referendum that agreed with recognition but didn't agree with listening to anything that that recognition would give you, so thank you for that. Can the minister please inform the Senate how consultation has guided the proposal for the Voice and why that—</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Grogan, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GROGAN</name>
    <name.id>296331</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll just refresh: can the minister please inform the Senate how consultation has guided the proposal for the Voice and why that is so important?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The idea of constitutional recognition through a voice began with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people themselves, but it's clear that Mr Dutton isn't listening to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We'd invite him to speak to people like Sean Gordon, the Liberals for Yes spokesperson, who recently said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">For politicians to go out and propose something … alternate to what Indigenous people asked for … speaks to our disempowerment as Indigenous people …</para></quote>
<para>But it isn't surprising that Mr Dutton didn't consult the overwhelming majority of First Nations people; in fact, it doesn't appear that Mr Dutton is even consulting his colleagues. Mr Pitt said today that no proposal for another referendum has been put to the party room. And Senator Nampijinpa Price and Mr Littleproud are not prepared to say they were consulted. So the question is: who is Mr Dutton— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Murray-Darling Basin</title>
          <page.no>27</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, Minister Wong. The mighty Murrumbidgee River flows through the ACT, and it has been in poor condition for decades. It's been starved of flows and even stopped flowing during the 2019 drought. The government recently struck a deal with states to extend the delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, including the 450 gigalitres of water for the environment—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>but the Murrumbidgee and other alpine rivers—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Pocock, please resume your seat. Senator Davey, I'm calling you to order. Senator Pocock has the right to ask his question in silence.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Madam President. The Murrumbidgee and other alpine rivers are excluded from Murray-Darling Basin reforms. Will the government consider reviewing the Snowy Hydro operations as an option for contributing water to the upper Murrumbidgee and improving water management in the broader southern Murray-Darling Basin?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>First, Senator Pocock, you're right about the effect of drought on the Murrumbidgee. I was the water minister during the millennium drought—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That was my fault? I assume that was a joke, Senator Ruston. That was a very stressful period for Canberrans, given the risk to the water supply for the ACT at the time. That—and the risk to Adelaide—was one of the reasons why critical human needs were given priority in the legislation and in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Obviously the first priority does have to be critical human needs.</para>
<para>I think the question went to the Snowy Hydro, the effect of that project and how that project will be managed. We remain committed to delivering the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in a way that achieves the best possible social and economic outcomes for basin industries. It is the case that the growing impact of climate change will exacerbate the challenge of sustainably managing water resources. We recognise the interconnection of water use between energy, agriculture and the environment.</para>
<para>The advice I have is that the government is willing to consider all options for improving the ACT's water resource availability, including the operations of the Snowy scheme. We are committed to ensuring that the operations of the Snowy scheme address both the energy and water priorities, including for the ACT. I also understand that recently the minister I'm representing, Minister Plibersek, announced the new agreement between the ACT, New South Wales, South Australia and Queensland—welcomed by the ACT government— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Pocock, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister. How is the government considering water security issues in the Upper Murrumbidgee and other alpine rivers to ensure the ACT and surrounding regional towns can have access to critical human water needs in dry times, as you outlined?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That's a level of detail I might ask Minister Plibersek to provide you with further information about. Obviously water management is a very complex area of regulation, as you may know, with both federal and state, territory or local, as well as operator specific plans of operating in terms of the Snowy Hydro. As a matter of principle, the Water Act recognises the primacy of critical human needs. As I explained, part of the historical context of that was the water scarcity experienced particularly by Adelaide and Canberra. Operating the Snowy in a way that recognises energy and water priorities is something that— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Pocock, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister. I look forward to answers from Minister Plibersek. The rules that govern the Upper Murrumbidgee River and other alpine rivers were agreed to more than 20 years ago and have not been reviewed since. These sit outside the basin reforms. Will the government commit to act to achieve better water management and adequate flows into the Upper Murrumbidgee?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Water rules have always been one of the reform challenges in water policies because, as you correctly identified, we have different jurisdictions with different arrangements for water. There's some capacity by the federal government through the Murray-Darling Basin Plan to implement those water rules, but historically water was managed, including in a legislative and regulatory sense, by jurisdictions. Part of the reform process that was undertaken post Mr Turnbull's, my and Mr Burke's roles as water ministers was to try to improve water rules. For example—and I know the National Party don't agree with this—we couldn't have water trading between parts of the river without changing water rules, and obviously with different patterns we needed to. In relation to the Murrumbidgee, I am not aware where that process is up to, but I'll seek advice. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Government Accountability</title>
          <page.no>28</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BABET</name>
    <name.id>300706</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Minister Wong. A recent report by the Centre for Public Integrity revealed that the former Morrison government—this mob over here—honoured an appallingly low rate of just 48.7 per cent of Senate order for production of document requests. How terrible. Does the minister believe that the former Morrison government was a transparent government? I don't think they were.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't believe any fair-minded person looking at Mr Morrison's secret ministries, or the robodebt tragedy, would think that the standards of transparency and accountability to the parliament were sufficient. I would make the point, Senator Babet—because I'm going to anticipate where your next question will go—that, as a consequence of there being an agreement or a decision to remove motions from the Senate Order of Business, the ways in which the crossbench and the now opposition have sought to change that is by a very substantial increase in orders for production of documents. Senator Babet, I am someone who has been here for quite a long time, since 2002. I have never seen as many OPDs used as indiscriminately as the current opposition and crossbench are using them. That is fine, if you—</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para> My point is: because we have changed one part of the program—frankly, because it was being utilised in a way that the Senate had not envisaged—we are now seeing a substantial increase in terms of OPDs. Was it 10 today? If those opposite and those on the crossbench wish to use OPDs in that way, so be it. We will provide the information we are able to, and, obviously, information we are not able to provide will not be provided. Again, Senator Babet, I would have thought that we remember what Mr Morrison was like and we remember the lack of accountability to parliament and even to his own cabinet colleagues, when he took their jobs without telling them. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Babet, first supplementary.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BABET</name>
    <name.id>300706</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister. You obviously knew where I was going with that. It's not your first rodeo! Obviously, my next question is: you guys, your government, are at 20.4 per cent—twice as secretive as the former government. That's twice as secretive as Scott Morrison's government. Why?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>An interesting stat also is that in this parliament we've seen nearly a doubling of OPDs moved per day and an increase in the number—</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>a 50 per cent increase in the number of OPDs agreed to per day compared to the 46th parliament. But I will certainly look at the—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Birmingham</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Twenty per cent? That's one in five.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Birmingham, may I remind you this is Senator Babet's question. He has the right for the answer to be given in silence. Minister Wong, have you finished?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No—not at all.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Babet, I will have a look—we will have a look—at what is being sought. If there are senators who want certain information, the approach I would always seek to take would be offer to a briefing, if available. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Babet, second supplementary.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BABET</name>
    <name.id>300706</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister, for your response there. I appreciate it. Given the lack of transparency that we've seen, unfortunately, from both sides of this chamber, will you guarantee to the Australian people that all individual submissions for the draft mis- and disinfo bill will be uploaded for public view and that none will be censored, because I'm not seeing much transparency with the Australian people from anyone in this place so far?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Babet, I have cautioned you before about the need for questions, particularly second supplementaries, to relate to your primary question. The minister informs me she is willing to answer the question, so I'll call the minister.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hughes, your constant interjections are incredibly disrespectful. Minister Wong.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Babet, I don't agree with the use of the word 'censored'. That's a very loaded word, and in this context I don't think it's apposite. In relation to what occurs with submissions before committees, those are decisions appropriately made by the committee. Obviously, parliamentary privilege applies to matters before Senate committees. Senate committees will routinely make decisions about how they handle submissions before them, including the extent to which they are made public, which ones are made public, if all are made public and if there is material which is prejudicial or defamatory. The Senate seeks not to allow parliamentary privilege to be abused, and so there is redaction or publication within the committee. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Biosecurity</title>
          <page.no>29</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is for the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Until last year, Australia was one of the last remaining countries to be free of <inline font-style="italic">Varroa destructor </inline>mite, a bug that has already devastated bee colonies in Europe, the United States and New Zealand. It's now been more than a year since the <inline font-style="italic">Varroa </inline>mite was first detected in Newcastle, and it is still on the move. In my state of Tasmania, honey bee products and pollination services are worth approximately $20 million per year, and this does not include bees' immense value to agriculture. Yesterday we learnt it has now reached parts of New South Wales near the Victorian border, leaving Victorian beekeepers stranded inside the 25-kilometre exclusion zone. Is the minister still confident that enough is being done to stop the spread of the <inline font-style="italic">Varroa </inline>mite?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Lambie, for your interest in what is a really important topic of concern not just to beekeepers and they honey bee industry but also to horticulture and pollination industries in particular. You're right that <inline font-style="italic">Varroa </inline>mite was first detected in the Port of Newcastle in June last year, and we've been working very closely with the New South Wales government ever since to try to contain this, bring it under control and, in fact, eradicate <inline font-style="italic">Varroa </inline>mite because of the danger that it presents.</para>
<para>We do take this as a very serious biosecurity outbreak that needs to be eradicated, and as recently as this morning I spoke again with my department's biosecurity section to get the latest update on where they are at in their negotiations with New South Wales, because we are providing them with whatever assistance we possibly can provide, including dollars, to help eradicate <inline font-style="italic">Varroa </inline>mite. I'm certainly aware of the evolving situation we face in New South Wales, particularly the recent detections of <inline font-style="italic">Varroa </inline>mite in Kempsey, and the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries has been following up on a number of tracing links out of this area.</para>
<para>As you're probably aware, the federal government's primary role in relation to biosecurity is to keep things out of the country. If they do, unfortunately, make their way in, as seems to have occurred in this case, it is primarily the responsibility of state and territory governments to manage those outbreaks, but, of course, that is with our assistance, and that's what we're doing. There is also an investigation underway as to how <inline font-style="italic">Varroa </inline>mite got into Australia in the first place, and that is obviously something that we're leading the work on given our responsibilities around borders.</para>
<para>I very much share your concern and I've seen the damage that it's already inflicted on beekeepers and the pollination industries. We'll keep working as hard as we possibly can with New South Wales to eradicate it.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Lambie, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This potentially catastrophic migration of <inline font-style="italic">Varroa </inline>mite is happening at the peak of our pollination season, with bees being trucked across the country while small operators are in limbo with their businesses devastated. Is the minister being pressured by big mainland commercial producers to manage <inline font-style="italic">Varroa </inline>mite instead of eradicating it?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Lambie, the short answer is no. I certainly haven't been put under any pressure whatsoever from anyone to do anything other than attempt to eradicate varroa mite. That's certainly the focus that we have.</para>
<para>I am concerned that the varroa mite has continued to spread. Fortunately, it hasn't spread at this point in time beyond the New South Wales borders, but we need to keep it that way and we need to help New South Wales to eradicate it from within its borders as well. But, no—absolutely not have I been placed any pressure. The only discussions I've had with the honeybee industry in general have been very positive and directed towards how we can work together to eradicate varroa mite, and how we can compensate those beekeepers who have suffered losses as a result of the eradication of their hives.</para>
<para>But, again, Senator Lambie, I'm very committed to doing what we can to work with the New South Wales government to eradicate varroa mite and I'm happy to provide you any further briefing. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Lambie, a second supplementary.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In July last year, Minister, you said that you were seeking to remove varroa mite from our shores. Last week on the ABC you confirmed that eradication is focused on south-east New South Wales. Does the minister seriously still believe that he can pull out a magic wand and eradicate the varroa mite from Australia?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Again, Senator Lambie, as I've already said, the primary responsibility for managing and controlling biosecurity outbreaks when they occur in Australia lies with state and territory governments. We do support them in that, and we're providing substantial funding to do so. So it's not a matter of me having a magic wand or me having a solution, it's about what the New South Wales government can do with our support. And we're working very closely with them to do so.</para>
<para>There may come a point in the future where it proves that varroa mite cannot be eradicated, but we're not at that point and we're doing everything we possibly can with the New South Wales government to eradicate it. That is absolutely our preference. As I said, as recently as today I confirmed with our department that that's our intention. Meetings are ongoing with the New South Wales government about what more we can do to adjust their program and adjust their plan to eradicate varroa mite, and that remains our intention.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workplace Relations</title>
          <page.no>31</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Watt. Last year's Secure Jobs, Better Pay reforms were passed to get wages moving again for Australian workers and to reinvigorate Australia's enterprise bargaining system. Despite wages increasing, worker wages and conditions are still being undermined by some employers who rely on loopholes within the Fair Work Act. What are the loopholes that some employers are using to undercut worker pay and conditions? And how is the Albanese government acting to close those loopholes?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Sheldon. I want to recognise your long career, along with many members on this side of the chamber, in fighting for workers' rights and fighting to close loopholes that see people being ripped off at work. It's good that we now have a government in Australia that is taking these issues seriously.</para>
<para>Senator Sheldon, I have good news for Australia: I am pleased to say that wages are moving again in Australia and that employers are back at the bargaining table, thanks to the Albanese government's Secure Jobs, Better Pay reforms.</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Order! Minister, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>They really don't like the idea of workers getting a fair go, do they? If there's anything they hate more, I'm yet to find it! As I said, their happy place is cutting workers' wages and stopping legislation to fix it. That's where we're back to.</para>
<para>Senator Sheldon, as I said, the Albanese government promised to fight for workers' wages and we are delivering. Here is what we've already delivered in just 15 months: an 8.6 per cent increase for the national minimum wage this year—the largest increase on record; a 15 per cent increase for aged-care workers—aged-care workers who the former government refused to do anything about; the gender pay gap is at an historic low of 13 per cent; and wages growth has improved, increasing by 3.6 per cent over the year to June 2023 and 3.7 per cent over the year to March 2023. And the opposition have moaned and bleated every step of the way, just as they continue to do today.</para>
<para>But the reality is that loopholes do remain within the Fair Work Act which undermine worker pay and conditions. If a worker steals from an employer, it's a crime—as it should be. But if an employer deliberately steals from their worker, in most places in Australia that is not a crime. If a worker steals from an employer, it is a crime, as it should be. But, if an employer deliberately steals from their worker, in most places in Australia it is not a crime. So the Albanese government is acting to close this loophole by criminalising wage theft. We're also ensuring labour hire workers are paid at least what they would be paid if they were employed directly. We're empowering the Fair Work Commission to set minimum standards for employee-like workers in the gig economy. We're about closing loopholes, and the opposition should support us. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Sheldon, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you very much, Minister Watt. I travel a lot for work, as many of us do, but I've also gotten to know the staff. I'll never forget having two long-serving Qantas staff members—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You may want to listen to this: two Qantas staff members breaking down in tears because they'd been told they could reapply for their same job at a lower rate of pay with labour hire or lose their job. What impact do these existing loopholes have—</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Sheldon, resume your seat. Order on my left!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What impact do these existing loopholes have on workers' wages and job security? <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Sheldon. We know that, over the last couple of weeks, we've had a whole lot of Johnny-come-latelies who've all of a sudden decided to take an interest in Qantas. But there are some people, like Senator Sheldon, Senator White, Senator Sterle and others, who have long careers in standing up for the workers of Qantas to make sure that they're treated fairly. They're not Johnny-come-latelies; they're people who've actually got records of standing up on these issues. These loopholes that Senator Sheldon is complaining about impact Australians every day, and they create a race to the bottom on wages. They undermine negotiated pay and conditions, and they undermine the integrity of the enterprise bargaining system.</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Order! Once again, Senator Henderson!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>So rude—so consistently rude. These loopholes, which allow wage theft—</para>
<para>Government senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Order on my right! Senator Henderson?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Henderson</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On indulgence, President: just to clarify, that was not me in that last interjection. But I want to say—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Henderson, I am happy to—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Henderson</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to correct the record, please.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Henderson, I'm quite happy to review the tape, but I'm firmly of the view that you were being disorderly—along with a number of other senators, but your voice was the loudest, and I heard you distinctly say to the minister, 'You talked about workers at Qantas.' I am more than happy to review the tape, but you were being disorderly.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Henderson, you are not in a debate with me. I've spent most of question time calling you to order, and once again I'm calling you to order.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The loopholes Senator Sheldon is talking about, allowing wage theft, insecure work and low wages, which those opposite let fester for a decade, undermine the job security of workers, and they undermine employers who do the right thing. The Albanese government will not allow Australia to become a country where you have to rely on tips to survive, and the opposition should back us.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Sheldon, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you for the insight. It's good to see someone sticking up for Qantas workers on this side—not on that side. Last year, those opposite just saw the title of 'secure jobs, better'—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Sheldon, in the interests of a respectful chamber, I ask you simply to ask the question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Last year, those opposite saw the title of 'secure jobs, better pay' and knew they were against it. Again, this year, they've seen the title of 'closing loopholes' and—guess what?—they're against that, too. What was the former coalition government's legacy on closing loopholes that have continued to undermine worker pay and conditions?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That's a very good question, Senator Sheldon. Last year, we heard claims from Senator Cash that the secure jobs, better pay bill would 'potentially close down Australia'. It looks pretty open to me! It has not closed down. On 4 September, before the secure jobs, better pay bill had even been written, Senator Cash claimed that our government's reforms would 'have the potential to take us back to the dark ages, to close down parts of the economy'. They'll be having leeches out doing medical treatments next, like they did in the Dark Ages. We'll be having Knights of the Round Table in Senator Cash's world.</para>
<para>Whenever Labor does something to get wages moving again, you can rely on the catastrophising and hyperbole from Senator Cash and the rest of the opposition. The former government had almost a decade to take action to close these loopholes. Instead, we had Mr Fletcher calling the labour-hire loophole essentially a made-up issue. Low-wage work was a deliberate design— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Much as I'd like to move an extension, I ask that further questions be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS</title>
        <page.no>32</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Answers to Questions</title>
          <page.no>32</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FAWCETT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.</para></quote>
<para>I'd like to go to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 and the questions asked by Senator Cash, and to rebut some of the assertions made by the minister, particularly around the fact that there were going to be no additional costs passed on.</para>
<para>We have seen in former legislation put forward by this government that the analysis that is done is often done without people who really understand the sector. I'm trying to think of the name of the bill, but it was one where some of the advice was provided by somebody who described himself as a 'shaman', amongst other things. People who actually know what they're talking about in this matter, being small-business people; representatives of the Council of Small Business Organisations, such as Matthew Addison; and people from the Business Council of Australia, such as Jennifer Westacott, their CEO, all highlight the fact that this will incur additional costs for the business sector, including small business.</para>
<para>Small business is a sector that is already running on tight margins. They employ the majority of Australians in this country. The building sector, for example, highlighted that, in their words, 'the introduction of this radical omnibus industrial relations bill that takes a sledgehammer to the tradies rights across the country'. There are people who we rely on to provide services—whether to small business, to residential homes et cetera—who want to run their own business because they're aspirational and they don't want to be a salaried employee. They want to run their own business and build it to the point where they can employ others and they can train young apprentices. This legislation, in the words of the building industry, is going to take a sledgehammer to their ability to survive.</para>
<para>The experts in this field—the people who actually employ people and run businesses—have also highlighted that these costs are not things that should be imposed at a time when both consumers and businesses are facing some of the highest costs in terms of the cost of living and costs to business that we have seen in recent years, particularly around energy prices, which businesses are concerned with. People have highlighted that much of this bill is ideological in nature, and the following comment has been made:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The only loophole this bad legislation is looking to close is that of plummeting union membership.</para></quote>
<para>We've seen other ideological positions by this government which are actually pushing up prices. I go to the issue of power, in particular. AEMO put out a statement just recently highlighting that my home state of South Australia can expect blackouts and further price rises. Far from the $275 reduction in power prices that the Australian people were promised by the Albanese government at the last election, we have seen rise upon rise. And AEMO are telling us that we will see further rises. What's at the heart of that? The heart of that is the ideological position of this government to commit to wind and solar as the only ways that they want to see emissions reduced. They claim that there will be energy security and they claim that there will be—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ayres?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ayres</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I know Senator Fawcett is running out of things to say about industrial relations, but he does need to confine his comments to the questions that were asked by coalition senators over the course of question time.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Fawcett, just please be mindful to remain relevant. But, having said that, it's about the answers, and some of the answers were very extensive.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FAWCETT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Deputy President, you have astutely noted that the answers were very broad and ranged far and wide. Particularly, they rebutted the fact that costs were a pressure coming out of this legislation. I'm merely pointing out this government's ill-thought-through ideological opposition, not only to this bill but to other bills, such as on energy, is actually making things worse.</para>
<para>I want to go to a point in an interview recorded last week and reported in the <inline font-style="italic">Australian</inline>, where the energy minister from Ontario in Canada had a question put to him about Minister Bowen's assertions that wind and solar are the cheapest. He said, 'Our government'—that is, the Canadian government—'moved on wind and solar in a big way, and it's created some serious problems for our systems operator.' That sounds like the statement from AEMO. He then said that they have gone in favour of nuclear power, because it's a more viable path to renewables, it's not emitting, and you're talking about a very small area of land. On price, he said they are producing power through their nuclear power stations for about 10c a kilowatt, whereas Australian households currently pay between 20c and 40c per kilowatt. So, we are seeing this industrial relations legislation, like industry policy, unnecessarily driving up prices, purely because of ideology.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STERLE</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is a great honour to stand up here and talk about Labor's latest IR tranche. But Mr Deputy President, I'm going to direct my remarks to you, because there might be a little bit of a kerfuffle on the other side here. This may come as a shock to a lot of senators, but I don't take any interest in a lot of the senators' backgrounds, unfortunately—I should. I judge them by their performance in this chamber. But I want to let the world in on a small secret that is not well known in here: I actually was a small-business person. My wife and I had our own little trucking empire, if can I put it that way. So, I know as well as anyone out there the costs, the pressures, the dramas and the stress that come with running your own business. I know that.</para>
<para>But I do—through you, Mr Deputy President—take a bit of personal umbrage at Senator Henderson's attack about small business and what we're doing to small business with the new IR tranche. For those opposite, there happens to be a road transport section. I would encourage those opposite, before they start throwing wild assertions that we don't care about small business, to do the following. Up in room 2S3 at the moment there are quite a few small-business people, and I'd encourage Senator Henderson and other senators on that side to go up there and meet them. Five of them are owner-drivers. They would love to put the position of all the work they have done to get this bill to where it is. There are also probably about half a dozen gig workers—through you, Mr Deputy President, to Senator Henderson—and you might want to go up there and hear of their trials and their tribulations, before you start casting aspersions and challenging us that we don't look after owner-drivers.</para>
<para>My life's work has been standing up for owner-drivers in the road transport industry. I come from that magnificent industry. I had my own vehicles, as I said. I know what it's all about. I welcome the opportunity to debate anyone in any state of Australia—and I'm throwing this out to anyone on that side—with a trucking audience, the small-business trucking audience, and bring it on. Have a fight with me. Defend why you will not vote to support these new laws that go to the heart of protecting small businesses in the road transport industry—owner-drivers.</para>
<para>And who else is against this? It is not the trucking industry—the whole road transport industry in Australia, all the associations, the owner-drivers, the states, the Australian Trucking Association, the Australian Road Transport Industrial Organisation, the National Road Freighters Association, and the Transport Workers Union. They are all united to defend, support and get this legislation through the lower house and then into the Senate. And if you want to defend and stick shoulder to shoulder with those industry associations that aren't from trucking—like the Australian Industry Group, the Business Council of Australia, those poor devils who are doing it so hard at the Minerals Council of Australia, and the National Farmers Federation—well, get in there. You stick with them. You run their argument. Their argument, very clearly, is this: they do not want to see any opportunity where they have to be forced to pay safe, sustainable and viable rates of pay to our trucking industry and our owner-drivers. I dare you—I'll travel anywhere in Australia, bring all your ACCI mates with you, have the fight. Let's fill the room with truckie owner-drivers. Let's fill the room with road transport employers. Because they're on our side, too. Employers—small, medium, huge—are all saying the same thing. Uber are saying the same thing. But if you want to latch yourself to those four or five greedy employer organisations who dare not see anyone else share in our Commonwealth in Australia, more disgrace to you.</para>
<para>I said this on a number of occasions. I've said it in trucking magazines. I've said it all over Australia: come and debate me. I will turn up. You can bring the army of your mates from the other organisations who want to screw us down. After 46 years in the road transport industry and about the road transport industry, as a third-generation road-train operator around Australia, I've had a gutful of it, and so have all these other road transport operators. They're upstairs. If you don't believe me, while you sit there with your heads real low, take 30 steps out this door over here, turn right and then take another 10 steps. Push the '2' button on the elevator—up you go—and walk another 50 metres down to 2S3. Why don't you ask the people that are doing it? Because you're more worried about the Liberal donors like the ACCI and the BCA and the AIG all these horrible people who want to screw our trucking rates.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Sterle, you've made your point.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If anyone had any doubt whatsoever about the true nature of the Labor government, I think this unexpected, unannounced and secret 700-plus-page bill is absolute evidence. In fact, why bother having Labor members in this chamber? Why don't you just put your trade union reps in these seats? It would be more honest than you are currently. This was not included in the government's 2022 election policies. Neither was it foreshadowed in any of the public consultation papers released in April of this year. No matter what they say, they did not go to the election and tell the Australian people that this was their true agenda.</para>
<para>On this side of the chamber, we absolutely knew what you were all about. A year-and-a-half in, you've had to sneak this in under the cover of darkness. You've got Senator Sterle here saying, 'Oh, it's just about a few truck drivers.' I was going to say something rude, but I won't. Like hell it is just about a few people in a couple of industries. This is about every workplace in this country. Employees will undoubtedly be worse off, but it is small businesses who are already suffering. There are five million small businesses in this country, 43 per cent of whom are now not profitable, given the stresses and strains your government have put on them with cost-of-living and the cost-of-doing-business pressures for small businesses. No-one in this country should are residual doubts.</para>
<para>Reading the response from the Minerals Council—the minerals industry is an incredibly important industry not only to my home state of Western Australia but also to the economic viability of our nation. Let's see what the Minerals Council has said about this. Tanya Constable said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Albanese Government's latest industrial relations legislation changes are some of the most extreme, interventionist workplace changes that have ever been proposed in Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The changes will inflict immense harm to the economy, the weight of which will fall on the shoulders of the most vulnerable Australians who will pay more for groceries, housing, and energy.</para></quote>
<para>Guess what? Your own minister, when announcing this yesterday, confirmed that the cost of living will go up even further for every Australian who at the moment can least afford it.</para>
<para>Let's see what the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia has had to say about this extreme legislation. The council's chair, Matthew Addison, said this:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The issues of confusion and complexity remain, combined with an increased requirement of every business, small or large, to dedicate—</para></quote>
<para>even more—</para>
<quote><para class="block">resources, time and money towards trying to understand—</para></quote>
<para>700 or 800 pages of complex legislation in four separate schedules. He continued:</para>
<quote><para class="block">At a time when small businesses are managing increased costs of supply, of rent, of power, of wages …</para></quote>
<para>The last thing any small business in this country needs is these additional changes. We do not, in this country, need any of these.</para>
<para>I'd like to say to the people of Western Australia that there are 10 good reasons why this is such a bad bill. It is impossibly complex. It has far too much uncertainty. It adds additional costs to businesses, including our five million small businesses. It makes Australians pay more in a cost-of-living crisis, which the minister confirmed yesterday. Shame on you for supporting that at the moment! It does absolutely nothing to increase productivity. When the minister was asked today in question time, he couldn't point to a single provision that actually increased productivity. It does nothing to enhance competition. It risks jobs—probably hundreds of thousands of jobs, particularly in small business. The only ones to benefit are Labor's union paymasters. As I said, the jig is up.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Reynolds. Senator Stewart.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEWART</name>
    <name.id>299352</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Albanese Labor government is supporting Australian workers by closing loopholes that undercut pay and conditions. This is core Labor business: being in the corner of workers, unlike those opposite. We were elected on a pledge to get wages moving again after a decade when those opposite had a deliberate design feature of keeping wages low. Last year's secure jobs, better pay legislation was about raising the floor, to improve working conditions and get wages moving again. This reached into every workplace in the country.</para>
<para>The IR legislation introduced into the House is about closing loopholes that undercut pay and conditions for workers. Most workers will be unaffected by what happens this year, but, for those who are affected, this will be life changing. I'm not sure why those opposite don't want to close these loopholes. Why wouldn't you want to put wages in the pockets of workers? Why would you not want to stop employers from stealing from their employees? It is a crime for workers to take money out of the till. It should be a crime for employers to take money out of their employees' pay packets.</para>
<para>While the scare campaign has started on the other side already, when the bill has only just been introduced into the House, I want to step through just a couple of facts about what this legislation is about. The first is about the labour hire loophole. There are some times when labour hire has legitimate uses in providing surge and specialist workforces. That's absolutely the case, and that should continue. What we're concerned about is the labour hire loophole which companies deliberately use in order to undercut agreements they've already made with their workers. This is where they've agreed to fair rates of pay for their workers, which might be up here, in an enterprise agreement, and then they undercut that agreement by bringing in labour hire workforces that are paid less. That is an unacceptable loophole we have in this country, and we are closing it with this legislation.</para>
<para>We're standing up for casual workers who want to become permanent employees. As part of the government's next set of workplace reforms, we will close the loophole that leaves people stuck classified as casuals when they actually work permanent regular hours. That means they work just like permanent employees but don't get any of the benefits of job security. We will legislate a fair, objective definition to determine when an employee can be classified as a casual. This will help casual workers who have regular work arrangements, giving them greater access to leave entitlements and more financial security if desired. No-one will be forced to convert from casual to permanent if they don't want to. This will absolutely be a choice of the worker.</para>
<para>We're protecting gig workers. We will protect gig workers in the economy by ensuring minimum standards of pay and safety. We know there is a direct link between low rates of pay and safety, but we can't deal with these safety issues until we have properly sorted-out minimum rates and standards in place for the gig economy. I feel like that's just a bit of a no-brainer. We won't be turning gig workers into employees. We know that many gig workers value the flexibility that comes with that type of work. But just because someone is working in the gig economy shouldn't mean that they end up being paid less than they would if they were an employee. Australia is a country where you shouldn't have to rely on tips to make ends meet. I'm sure that's something that we should actually all able to get behind.</para>
<para>Then there is wage theft. We currently have a situation where, if an employee steals money from the till, it's a criminal offence, as it should be, but, if an employer steals money from the worker, it is not. That's a straight-out loophole. This year, the Albanese Labor government will legislate to criminalise wage theft, closing that loophole. The previous coalition government had nine years to act, and they failed to do so.</para>
<para>On this side of the chamber, we will always make sure that we stand up for working people. We want to make sure that we get wages moving again and improve the productivity of our economy. The IR legislation that was introduced into the House will do just that. Make no mistake—Labor will always be on the side of workers.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CADELL</name>
    <name.id>300134</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As a Holden supporter, it hurts me to say this, but Henry Ford once said, 'You can't build a reputation on what you are going to do.' Your reputation is built on what you've done. There are lots of words that come up here about what we're going to do for workers. I agree with those on the other side.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Pratt</name>
    <name.id>I0T</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>How did your protection of casual workers go?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CADELL</name>
    <name.id>300134</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I note, while we're talking, that Kellogg's has Snap, Crackle and Pop from the Rice Bubbles. Over here, we've got 'shout, whinge and heckle' on the other side, so we've got our own version of that.</para>
<para>What we have going forward is a party that talks about the highlights. Who cannot stand up here and say that an employer that intentionally steals money should go and pay? That is right, but it doesn't take 700 pages of legislation to do that. What happens is that they get one or two good ideas, put them on maybe page 3 or 8, and then have 682 pages of their Labor mates' wish list. That's what we get here in this government. It is virtue signalling, or 'virtue washing'—what they're really doing over what they say they're doing. We cop it everywhere.</para>
<para>We asked this question on IR. We've come here, and it's being spoken about now. But what they're going to do is get their union buddies to come in and examine all the payrolls. What do I do if I'm working in a place, have a medical situation and use sick leave, and I don't want it disclosed? How do I keep that private? There's nothing here. They can walk in, demand to see the records and see my private records. Even though I'm not a member, they can see my personal information. There has to be a carve-out. It is overreach again.</para>
<para>When we talk about theft of wages being a potentially good thing—I come from the Hunter Valley. There is a mob up there called Glencore. I don't support coalmining in the Hunter to put money in Swiss bank accounts. I support giving money to the workers and the people that mine the coal. If it were just that, there would be merit in it, but again they go too far. We get back to what we really see time and time again with this government. They pick one or two things that will benefit and put 200 things that will hurt. They cry, 'We're getting wages moving again.' They have. This government holds the record for the greatest real wage loss, in December of last year. They get wages moving. They're getting them backwards. That's the record they hold. They don't want to tell the whole story.</para>
<para>We get back to why. It's about mates. It always comes down to mates. We do things that benefit the union industry super funds. We do things that benefit our union mates getting sign up. They want everyone to unionise so that they can have coverage over every business. They're already going to own every business with this super fund, so that will be a conflict that comes up sooner or later, when they're making laws that hurt their other friends.</para>
<para>The other question today was on Qatar, on flights and on the restriction of competition in this industry. I understand why they aren't worried about the lack of competition or flight costs, because you don't need more flights when you've got No. 34 Squadron on speed dial. 'I'll have a SPA jet to here and another SPA jet to there.' You don't worry about the price of flights when the taxpayer picks up the bill and a loadmaster picks up your golf clubs. This is what's going on, here. Don't worry about what's going on in the world; you've never had it better. You are earning more money than you ever have before, but, unfortunately, things cost way more than that. We are going to fix all these things so that you won't have your wages stolen in those small instances. That's a great thing, but everyone will have access to your private information. A union body like this is not like a work ombudsman. It is overreach.</para>
<para>I quote Henry Ford again: 'You can't build a reputation on what you are going to do.' Your reputation is built on what you do. This government has failed at that on just about everything from energy to IR to competition policy to the Voice. That's the other question that came up today. It is dividing the nation. Leadership in all of these areas is about bringing people together, but what we get with every piece of legislation is division, and it isn't good enough. So what do we do? We go around the world, and we work out what sorts of things we have to do for our mates. If I paint something on a sign for a pet project, is it worth cutting another airline out of Australia? It appears so. If I get $2 million for a campaign, is it worth allowing the destruction of environmental lands and farming lands? I think so. It's time to govern in the best interests of all of Australia, not those of our mates.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Climate Change</title>
          <page.no>37</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to a question without notice I asked today relating to coal mine approvals.</para></quote>
<para>Eighteen years ago today on 5 September 2005, Anthony Albanese introduced his Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change (Climate Change Trigger) Bill. At the time, he said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Climate change is one of the most significant challenges facing the global community and one of the greatest threats to Australia's way of life.</para></quote>
<para>He went on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">These are profound risks which demand urgent action. It is important that a suite of measures is adopted by the Australian government to tackle climate change. These measures should include…establishing a climate change trigger in federal environmental legislation.</para></quote>
<para>That was 18 years ago. Now, we have Mr Albanese in the hot seat of Prime Minister—the most powerful office in the land—and it feels as though the Prime Minister has lost his nerve. All the way back in 2005, Anthony Albanese knew what needed to be done to arrest the climate crisis. Coal and gas are cooking the climate and wrecking the environment, but, right now—still now—our environment laws don't do dot. They are broken when it comes to the climate crisis and polluting projects.</para>
<para>In 2023, when we are reaching global boiling, as the world's scientists have warned, when we are staring down the barrel of another hot and damaging bushfire season this summer, when we know that, by 2030, we have to have drastically cut pollution, when we know the world's experts and scientists are saying, 'not one more coal or gas project' unless we want to give up on tackling climate change, our environment laws are still allowing the approval of new coal and new gas. Our environment minister is still approving new coalmines and gas wells.</para>
<para>Just this year alone, the environment minister has approved five new coalmines, when all of the advice to this government and governments right around the world—from the United Nations scientists to the International Energy Agency and everyone in between—is that we can't have any more new fossil fuel projects. But this year the environment minister here in Australia, Tanya Plibersek, has approved five. The most recent was last Friday. That mine, approved last Friday, the Gregory Crinum mine, is going to be able to operate until 2073—50 years. Australia's environment minister, whose job it is to protect the environment, whose job it is to make sure the assessment of these big projects is based on what is good and bad for the environment, has just approved a coalmine that is going to continue for the next 50 years.</para>
<para>Back in 2005, on this very day, when Anthony Albanese introduced his climate trigger bill, he was right. He was right then, and that bill is still right today. We have this discussion right on the eve of this government saying they're going to introduce changes to Australia's environment laws—amendments to the environment regulation in this country. But despite those changes, despite those commitments to fix Australia's environment laws, they are still going to allow the environment minister of the day to approve new coal and gas—to approve projects, giving them the environmental tick of approval even if they make the climate crisis worse. This government has to get its act together on climate and environment regulation. It's 2023; it's time to stop approving new coal and new gas.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>37</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>37</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>39</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Consideration of Legislation</title>
          <page.no>39</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the following general business orders of the day be considered this week at the time for private senators' bills:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">No. 40—Digital Assets (Market Regulation) Bill 2023—on Wednesday, 6 September 2023; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">No. 41—Ending Poverty in Australia (Antipoverty Commission) Bill 2023—on Thursday, 7 September 2023.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>39</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Postponement</title>
          <page.no>39</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senators. I shall now proceed to the discovery of formal business.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>39</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rearrangement</title>
          <page.no>39</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Gallagher, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That consideration of the business before the Senate on Tuesday, 5 September 2023, be interrupted at approximately 5 pm, but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking, to enable Senator Kovacic to make her first speech (of approximately 20 minutes) without any question before the chair.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>40</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aviation Industry</title>
          <page.no>40</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>40</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, by no later than 5.30 pm on Wednesday, 13 September 2023, copies of all documents provided to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government which either:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) are related to the application by Qatar Airways for additional international flight services to Australian airports; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) helped inform the Minister's decision regarding the application by Qatar Airways for additional international flight services to Australian airports.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aviation Industry</title>
          <page.no>40</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>40</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RICE</name>
    <name.id>155410</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, by no later than 5 pm on 14 September 2023:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) all briefing materials and/or advice provided by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts to the Minister or her office associated with the decision on whether to grant Qatar Airways additional bilateral air rights in July 2023; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) all minutes, file notes, briefing notes or other documents relating to meetings between Qantas Airways Limited representatives and the Minister or the Prime Minister, or their respective offices, associated with the decision on whether to grant Qatar Airways additional bilateral air rights in July 2023.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aviation Industry</title>
          <page.no>40</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>40</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move general business notices of motion Nos 300, 301 and 302 together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 300</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than 5.30 pm on Monday, 11 September 2023, copies of all advice, briefings or submissions provided by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to the Prime Minister related to the application by Qatar Airways for additional international flight services to major Australian airports.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 301</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than 5.30 pm on Monday, 11 September 2023, copies of all advice, briefings or submissions provided by the Treasury to either the Treasurer (Dr Chalmers) or the Assistant Treasurer (Mr Jones) related to the application by Qatar Airways for additional international flight services to major Australian airports.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 302</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Trade and Tourism, by no later than 5.30 pm on Monday, 11 September 2023, copies of all advice, briefings or submissions provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to the Minister for Trade and Tourism related to the application by Qatar Airways for additional international flight services to major Australian airports.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aviation Industry</title>
          <page.no>40</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>40</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>' SULLIVAN (—) (): At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Monday, 11 September 2023, any ministerial briefing notes, emails or correspondence since 1 February 2023, in relation to monitoring and reporting of the domestic airline industry, between the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Department of the Treasury,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Treasurer and/or the Treasurer's office, or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury, and/or the Assistant Minister's office.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Special Purpose Flights</title>
          <page.no>41</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>41</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>' SULLIVAN (—) (): At the request of Senator Birmingham, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Senate notes that during question time on Monday, 4 September 2023, Senator Wong stated that in November 2022 the Government was provided with security advice recommending that new Special Purpose Aircraft (SPA) Guidelines were required and that new SPA reports be presented in a manner consistent with the revised security guidelines; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Senate orders the Minister representing the Minister for Defence (Senator Wong), to provide to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, on a confidential basis, by Thursday, 7 September 2023, a copy of the revised SPA Guidelines and any related advice that informed the change to the SPA Guidelines.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The government will not be supporting this motion. The government has acted on the advice of security agencies in relation to reporting the use of special purpose aircraft. Security agencies could not have been clearer when they said the level of information previously published was not fit for purpose. The Leader of the Opposition, himself, has said that security agencies are best placed to complete the threat assessments in relation to the security of politicians and their families. Unlike those opposite, who stopped all reporting on the use of special purpose aircraft, without reason, we have restarted publishing. We are publishing information that is safe to publish and that reflects the advice of security agencies.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>41</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Environment and Communications References Committee</title>
          <page.no>41</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference</title>
            <page.no>41</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 28 February 2024:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Middle Arm Industrial Precinct, with particular reference to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the development of Darwin's Middle Arm Industrial Precinct, the role and funding intentions of the Northern Territory and Commonwealth governments;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the likely and intended future uses of the site as well as the industries and supply chains that would benefit from those plans;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) any climate, environmental, health or cultural heritage impacts as a result of developing the harbour and the industries seeking to establish themselves at Middle Arm;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the conduct, process and implications of the proposed strategic environmental assessment for Middle Arm;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) engagement and advocacy by industries and their representatives throughout the Middle Arm proposal, including with First Nations groups and communities and adherence to the principles of free, prior and informed consent; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) any other related matters.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that business of the Senate No. 3, standing in the name of Senator Hanson-Young, be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [15:49]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>35</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                  <name>White, L.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>28</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                  <name>Payne, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>42</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Securities and Investments Commission</title>
          <page.no>42</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>42</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>O'SULLIVAN (—) (): At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) on 1 August 2023, the Senate ordered that there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Thursday, 10 August 2023, the final report of a Treasury assurance review into the conduct of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) Chair, Mr Joseph Longo (which was sent to ASIC Deputy Chair, Ms Sarah Court, by Mr Simon Writer, First Assistant Secretary, Foreign Investment Division, Department of the Treasury on 26 September 2022),</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) on 10 August 2023, only a heavily redacted copy of the report was presented to the Senate in response to the order,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the Treasurer, in his response, made a claim of public interest immunity (PII) which asserted that the redacted sections of the report should not be released due to the potential impact on the privacy of individuals, on individuals who contributed to the review on a confidential basis, and on the integrity of fact-finding investigations,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) these matters are not in themselves grounds for a PII claim, and insufficient information was provided about the harm to the public interest that would be caused, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) given the concern regarding the release of some of the information in the report, the Economics References Committee is well-placed to receive the unredacted report and make any assessment required, including in relation to publication;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) orders ASIC to provide the unredacted report to the Economics References Committee by no later than midday on 7 September 2023; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) directs the committee to report to the Senate by Monday, 11 September 2023 as to whether ASIC has complied with the order.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The government will be opposing this motion. The documents relate to sensitive matters, with personal privacy implications. Tabling such a report would represent a significant breach of privacy for the complainants and witnesses, and could potentially act as a deterrent for any future complaints.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that general business notice of motion No. 298, standing in the name of Senator Bragg, be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [15:57]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>43</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                  <name>Payne, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>22</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>White, L.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Disability Insurance Scheme</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>43</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEELE-JOHN</name>
    <name.id>250156</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) on 11 May 2023, the Senate ordered the Minister representing the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme to table the NDIS Financial Sustainability Framework (order 229), and the Government's response advised that while National Cabinet had agreed to develop a framework, the document did not yet exist,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) on 19 June 2023, the Senate again ordered that the NDIS Financial Sustainability Framework be tabled, by the Minister Representing the Treasurer (order 253), and the Government's response advised that on 28 April 2023 National Cabinet committed to the framework, and made a public interest immunity (PII) claim over the document prepared for that meeting, asserting that its release would be detrimental to relations between the Commonwealth and the states and territories,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) on 22 June 2023, the Senate rejected the PII claim and ordered the Minister representing the Treasurer to comply with the order, and in response the Government again refused to comply, maintaining its PII claim, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) on 28 August 2023, an Australian media outlet confirmed that their freedom of information request for financial information related to the NDIS Financial Sustainability Framework was rejected by the Department of Social Services, the Treasury and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) reiterates its rejection of the PII claim made by the Minister representing the Treasurer, noting that the public interest in disclosing the document outweighs any potential prejudice to relations between the Commonwealth and the states and territories; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) orders that the Minister representing the Treasurer attend the Senate following the conclusion of motions to take note of answers on 6 September 2023 to provide an explanation of the failure to comply with orders 229 and 253, and the order of 22 June 2023, and:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) any senator may move to take note of the explanation, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) any such motion may be debated for no longer than 30 minutes, shall have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that general business notice of motion No. 303, standing in the name of Senator Steele-John, be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:04]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>40</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Birmingham, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Payne, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>20</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>White, L.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Disability Insurance Scheme</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>44</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEELE-JOHN</name>
    <name.id>250156</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That there be laid on the table, by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Thursday, 7 March 2024, all documents relating to, and including, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Financial Sustainability Framework.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that general business notice of motion No. 304, standing in the name of Senator Steele-John, be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:08]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>40</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Birmingham, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Payne, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>20</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>White, L.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>45</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Withdrawal</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>O'SULLIVAN ( — ) ( ): At the request of Senator Rennick, I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 305.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>45</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Goods and Services Tax</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>45</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than 10 am on Monday, 11 September 2023, any briefing notes, ministerial briefs and correspondence since 23 May 2022 between the Treasurer and the Treasurer of each state and territory (including former Treasurers of a state or territory that have held office since 23 May 2022) regarding the distribution of GST revenue, the GST formula or the statutory review of the operation of the <inline font-style="italic">Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair Share of GST) Act 2018</inline>.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that general business notice of motion No. 307 standing in the name of Senator Dean Smith be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:15]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>40</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Birmingham, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Payne, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>20</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>White, L.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>46</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Commonwealth Bilateral Air Service Agreements Select Committee</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Appointment</title>
            <page.no>46</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 345 standing in my name.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move the motion as amended:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Commonwealth Bilateral Air Service Agreements, be established to inquire into and report on all Federal Government decisions relating to any proposals received in the past 12 months for additional services to Australia's major airports, with particular reference to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the impacts of the decision on competition in the Australian aviation sector and the cost of living pressures on families and business;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the impact on the Australian economy, including on Australian travellers, the tourism and hospitality sectors and movement of freight;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the rights of airlines or other bodies to appeal decisions regarding bilateral air services agreements made by the responsible minister; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) any other related matters.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) That the committee present its final report by 9 October 2023.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) That the committee consist of 7 senators, as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) three nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) two nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) two nominated by minority party or independent senators.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) That:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority party or independent senator;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a participating member shall be taken to be a member of a committee for the purpose of forming a quorum of the committee if a majority of members of the committee is not present.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) That 3 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) That the committee elect as chair a member nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and as deputy chair a member nominated by a minority party or independent senator.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) That the deputy chair shall act as chair when the chair is absent from a meeting of the committee or the position of chair is temporarily vacant.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) That the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, may appoint another member of the committee to act as chair during the temporary absence of both the chair and deputy chair at a meeting of the committee.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) That, in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(11) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 2 or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(12) That the committee and any subcommittee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(13) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(14) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.</para></quote>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that general business notice of motion No. 308, as amended, standing in the name of Senator McKenzie be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:21]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>30</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Birmingham, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Payne, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>30</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                  <name>White, L.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>48</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Defence</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>48</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Senate notes that previously, under guidelines for the use of special purpose aircraft, schedules of flights (which included full details regarding each flight) were regularly tabled in the Senate to promote public transparency and accountability in relation to the use of RAAF VIP aircraft, and the last schedule was tabled in the Senate on 28 June 2021 and covered the period 1 July to 31 December 2020; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, by no later than 3 pm on 13 September 2023, the following information relating to special purpose flights:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) for all flights since 1 January 2021:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(A) cost per flight, including the cost of any empty return flights (often referred to as ghost flights),</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(B) the departure and arrival locations, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(C) the date of the flights,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) all current guidelines provided to officials around the use of special purpose flights, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) all previous versions of guidelines provided to officials around the use of special purpose flights.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Omit paragraph (b), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) The Senate notes that security agencies are best placed to complete threat assessments in relation to the security of politicians and their families;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) The Senate notes that the Leader of the Opposition has also stated that, "security agencies are best placed to make the threat assessments in relation to politicians, our families" and that, "the AFP for a while have been concerned about pattern of life issues.";</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, by no later than 3 pm on 13 September 2023, the following information relating to special purpose flights to the extent such information can be provided consistent with advice from security agencies:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) for all flights since 1 January 2021:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(A) cost per flight, including the cost of any empty return flights (often referred to as ghost flights),</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(B) the departure and arrival locations, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(C) the date of the flights, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) all current guidelines provided to officials around the use of special purpose flights.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We've circulated an amendment to Senator Chisholm's amendment, and I seek leave to move that amendment.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">After paragraph (d)(ii), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) all previous versions of guidelines provided to officials around the use of special purpose flights.</para></quote>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Shoebridge to the amendment moved by Senator Chisholm to general business notice of motion No. 309 be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:29]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>42</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Birmingham, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Payne, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>19</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>White, L.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>PRESIDENT (): The question now is that the government's amendment, as moved by Senator Chisholm and amended by Senator Shoebridge's motion, be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The government will not be supporting this motion. The government has acted on the advice of our security agencies in relation to the reporting of the use of special-purpose aircraft. It was a clear recommendation of the agencies that the level of information published in the reports was not fit for purpose in the current security environment. The Albanese government is committed to transparency, and that is why, following the security review and the presentation of the updated guidelines, we restarted publishing the reports. We published the information that is safe to publish and that reflects the advice of our security agencies. The fact that we are debating it demonstrates that we are accountable. That is why we restarted reporting in line with the security advice after the opposition stopped publishing these reports without explanation or reason during the last 18 months of their government.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that general business motion 309, amended, as moved by Senator Shoebridge be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:38]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>43</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Birmingham, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Payne, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>19</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>White, L.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>50</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Commonwealth Bilateral Air Service Agreements Select Committee</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Appointment</title>
            <page.no>50</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ASKEW</name>
    <name.id>281558</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ASKEW</name>
    <name.id>281558</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I apologise to the chamber: I made an error completing a form earlier for notice of motion No. 308 and I seek leave to revisit it and recommit for a vote the motion standing in the name of Senator McKenzie to establish the Select Committee on Commonwealth Bilateral Air Service Agreements.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I think the government is calling for the explanation of the error, Senator Askew.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ASKEW</name>
    <name.id>281558</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It was my personal error by missing somebody who was actually going to be on leave.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that general business notice of motion No. 308, standing in the name of Senator McKenzie, as amended, be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:46]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>32</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Birmingham, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Payne, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>31</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                  <name>White, L.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>51</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Domestic Reserve) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="s1390" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Domestic Reserve) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>51</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the following bill be introduced:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Offshore Petroleum and </inline><inline font-style="italic">Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006</inline>, and for related purposes.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the bill and move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a first time.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>51</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I table an explanatory memorandum, and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave is granted.</para>
<para class="italic"><inline font-style="italic">The speech read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">Today I introduce the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Domestic Reserve) Bill 2023, because Australians should benefit from Australia's vast and valuable petroleum resources. These petroleum resources include oil, natural gas, and other valuable hydrocarbons like bitumen.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The purpose of my Bill is to introduce a <inline font-style="italic">petroleum reserve</inline> in Australia's offshore waters, by amending the <inline font-style="italic">Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006</inline> (OPGGS Act).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill is different from my earlier OPGGS Amendment (Benefit to Australia) Bill 2020 referred on 4 February 2021 to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and reported on in March 2021.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">With that Bill, I sought to broaden the object clause of the OPGGS Act to make the 'benefit of the Australian community' a guiding principle in the interpretation of that legislation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">When the Senate failed to support making the 'benefit of the Australian community' a guiding principle for managing our offshore petroleum reserves, foreign-owned transnational oil and gas companies notched up another win <inline font-style="italic">against</inline> the people of Australia. If the 'benefit of the Australian community' had been adopted as a guiding principle in the OPGGS Act, then long held leases would now be in production providing more gas to Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australia has abundant petroleum resources. During 2020 Australia was the seventh largest gas producer in the world, largely based on new projects located off the coast of Western Australia. These projects have a 40-year life, and possibly double that time if nearby leases are put into production.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">By 2022 Australia was the world's top exporter of liquefied natural gasbut the large amount of gas being exported is causing a domestic gas shortage. How is it possible for the world's largest exporter of gas to be short of gas at home?</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Firstly, the state of Western Australia is not short of gas. The state government encouraged foreign-owned multinational oil and gas companies to invest as early as 1977 by entering long term contracts to take a specific amount of gas, and later in 2006 it placed a 15% domestic gas reserve policy on Commonwealth gas brought onshore to WA for processing<inline font-style="italic">.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We now know that 93% of all of Australia's known reserves of natural gas are in the North West Shelf off Western Australia and part of the Northern Territory.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Is it fair that 93% of Commonwealth-owned natural gas should benefit just 10% of Australia's population? My view is no. Western Australia receives a huge benefit without compensating the other states because of the passage of the <inline font-style="italic">Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair Share of GST) Act 2018.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Commonwealth government might argue the <inline font-style="italic">Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Act 1987</inline> gets payment for the gas, but that Act fails on every level including revenue. Labor, the authors of this legislation, ensured the law was poorly designed and no government has had the courage to change it since.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">There is an energy crisis in eastern Australia where most Australians live. There are few long-term supply contracts, and no domestic offshore gas reserve policy on Commonwealth-owned gas, because less than 7% of the known gas reserves are in eastern Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It is no surprise the Labor government of Western Australia supports a national gas reserve offshore from the eastern states because WA has access to more gas than they could ever need.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The left might tell you that fossil fuels are on the way out, but the evidence is otherwise. Gas is increasingly needed to backup renewables as coal fired power stations are forced out of the electricity generation business.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Gas shortages are causing electricity prices on the east coast to skyrocket.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The electricity price in the eastern states is set through a five-minute bidding process where the price offered by gas generators often sets the price for the purchase of wind and solar generated electricity one day in four. A domestic gas reserve will increase the supply of gas and lower the price of electricity directly and indirectly through the National Electricity Rules.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) knows the generators game the system, driving up the price of electricity, and the government is doing nothing about it. The problem is beyond the scope the Bill I am introducing.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australia is the only exporter of gas in the world to suffer domestic gas shortages. All Australians own the gas in offshore Commonwealth waters but only those Australians directly working for foreign-owned gas companies tend to benefit.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It is time for the Labor government to show it is different from the weak coalition of Liberals and Nationals, who were in government for the past three terms and did not introduce a domestic reserve of gas for Australia's use.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A handful of integrated foreign oil and gas companies control Australia's offshore oil and gas leases. These oil and gas giants joint venture with each other and they operate across the value chain from exploration, production, to transport, refining and marketing.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Despite their size these oil and gas companies still need to borrow to fund new projects. Lenders are willing to extend credit to these companies if the companies have long term contracts to underpin repayments to the lender.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Foreign owned multinational exporters now supply <inline font-style="italic">locally produced gas to foreign markets</inline> under long term agreements, with the result that in 2019-20 74% of Australian produced natural gas was exported.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">These long-term agreements made with China, Japan, South Korea, and other south east Asian markets are for gas at prices which are much lower than today's international spot price, which explains why gas turbine operators, households and businesses in these countries pay less for our gas than we do.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The current shortage of gas in the eastern states is caused by onshore gas being exported on long term contracts.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">There are gas reserves on the Australian landmass. This gas belongs to the states. My Bill is about the gas reserves under the seabed in Commonwealth waters.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Before I go on, I want to put on the record—again—that foreign integrated gas companies don't pay Australia for the gas they take from the Commonwealth seabed. They recognise their world-wide expenses in Australia and their revenues in a low tax country, which means they pay next to nothing on the profits made with Australian gas. If we can't get paid for our gas, then at least we can buy some of our gas at the same price as it is sold overseas.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Every permanent migrant arriving here increases carbon emissions and increases the need for gas to provide electricity at night and when wind speeds are too high or too low.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Coalition government's response to the domestic shortage of gas and high prices for the gas was the Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism (ADGSM).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The ADGSM has been used to delay the creation of a domestic reserve for gas. We know that, because in 2018 and 2019 the east coast LNG joint venturers agreed to offer the uncontracted gas first to the Australian market <inline font-style="italic">in return for the Coalition government not implementing a domestic gas reservation policy</inline>. It is stating the obvious that you can't trust the Coalition.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The shortcomings of the ADGSM identified by the Productivity Commission mean it cannot be the long-term answer to gas shortages. The proposed price caps are expensive and short term with the taxpayer saving nothing.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The government's proposed mandatory code for energy will fail because it will undermine the case for new investment and create a gas supply crunch according to the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA), the peak body for the oil and gas companies.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Government needs to find a permanent solution to gas shortages; our need for gas is ongoing and increasing because coal fired power stations are timetabled to shut.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Gas also controls the rate of absorption of solar and wind generated electricity into the NEM because it is the fuel providing back-up electricity at night, or when the wind speed is too high or too low.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We need gas for electricity generation, and we need it for manufacturing. Gas cannot be substituted in many manufacturing processes including the production of fertilisers, non-ferrous metals, aluminium, glass, chemicals, and galvanised steel.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The importance of gas is seen in the government's decision to build the Kurri Kurri gas-fired plant at a cost of $600 million dollars. The Kurri Kurri gas plant is expected to operate 2% of the time. In time the government hopes the plant will operate on a mix of 15% green hydrogen and 85% gas at a cost of another $700 million dollars.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Zero net emissions will mean lower standards of living, which equals worse health outcomes, lower paid jobs, crowded housing, and an increasingly inequitable society.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The government says there will be jobs in renewables. What they don't say is that electricity will become permanently more expensive, leaving less money for other things, and that the most vulnerable people will be much worse off.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">My Bill proposes a petroleum reserve in Commonwealth waters, including off the coast of Western Australia. There is no reason the eastern states should not be able to enter long term contracts for petroleum or gas in the way Western Australia does.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The sovereign risk argument does not exist, because all that I am proposing is widening of the client base from Western Australia to all states and territories.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A national gas reserve in offshore waters would provide energy security, lower the cost of living for families and save Australian manufacturers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It is not in the national interest to allow the world's biggest oil and gas companies to export most of Australia's gas, leaving the domestic market short. Australia has a gas export problem which needs solving.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In October 2022 the government announced it would consider options for a prospective national gas reservation scheme in the White Paper titled 'Gas reservation issues paper' but failed to follow through<inline font-style="italic">.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Foreign-owned multinational oil and gas companiesrecoil in horror at the suggestion of a domestic gas reserve. They claim a domestic gas reserve in offshore waters would discourage future investment, but we know from the experience in Western Australia that the claim is baseless.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Western Australia has had a domestic gas obligation since 1977, and later the formal Domestic Reserve Policy which has operated since 2006.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In other words, the domestic gas obligation has existed in Western Australia for over 40 years, co-existing with <inline font-style="italic">growing </inline>foreign investment.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The obligation to provide 15% of gas to WA did not stop Chevron making the largest single investment in Australia's history: the $80 billion investment in the LNG Gorgon Project on the North West Shelf.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Western Australian government and the WA DOMGAS Alliance, the peak gas user group, support a national gas reserve so long as a carve out is made for Western Australia. This represents a massive windfall for Western Australia because 93% of Australia's conventional gas resources are found offshore in the North West Shelf.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The North West Shelf accounts for 71% of Australia's chilled gas exports, which in 2022 had a value of $65.8 billion. On this basis the domestic gas obligation was worth just under $10 billion to the Western Australian economy. This gift of $10 billion annually of a resource owned by all Australians is not directly considered through the horizontal fiscal equalisation process which underpins the distribution of GST.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Furthermore, Western Australia takes the lion's share of the royalty regime which applies to two petroleum leases known as WA-1-P and WA-28-P.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Western Australian government is addicted to Commonwealth-owned petroleum resources. The domestic gas obligation underpins the Western Australia's economy, with 57% of the state's electricity generated from gas, 28% from coal and just 15% from wind or solar.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The balance of the gas supplied under the domestic gas obligation is used in the manufacture of fertilisers, chemicals and products which require very high temperatures like aluminium, non-ferrous metals, galvanising steel with zinc, and glass.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The WA Government would argue that its ok for WA to keep $11 billion dollars' worth of gas annually from the other states because Australia benefits from all exported gas. Of course, it is wrong to think that because the $92.8 billion in exports is added to Australia's GDP: a mirage in the Australian economy.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">My proposal for a domestic reserve is broad-based with regulations to define the details. There is no effect on foreign companies because they already have an obligation to sell to the Western Australian government. Supplying another state or territory government changes nothing for them.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I commend the Bill to the Senate.</para></quote>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to continue my remarks later.</para>
<para>Leave granted; debate adjourned.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</title>
        <page.no>54</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Higher Education: Practical Placements</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>A letter has been received from Senator Tyrell:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Students shouldn't have to go broke doing practical placement to finish their studies.</para></quote>
<para>Is the proposal supported?</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</inline></para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator TYRRELL</name>
    <name.id>300639</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Students shouldn't have to go broke doing practical placements to finish their studies. Imagine if we told all politicians now: 'You're not getting paid for the next few months. You're still expected to do your full workload as normal, but we just won't pay you for it.' I don't think they'd go for that, and I reckon most people would think it's a pretty unreasonable thing to ask. So why do we expect students to do it?</para>
<para>Students doing degrees like nursing, teaching and social work are required to do a practical placement to finish their studies. We're screaming out for people to go and study these degrees. We should be doing everything we can to encourage people to take up these careers. You know what doesn't encourage people? You know what actually turns people away from finishing their degrees and entering these careers? It's making them choose between buying groceries and paying rent. It's making them turn down their regular part-time or casual job for three or so months, risking their future income. It's putting such pressures on them that they develop anxiety, which in turn affects their performance at uni and at work.</para>
<para>At the moment, we're saying to prospective nurses and teachers: 'Unless you can live with no income for a few months then you can't do the job.' I don't think that stacks up. The Australian Universities Accord is looking at this issue right now. The accord's interim report recognises that mandatory unpaid placements place significant pressures on students. Students from regional areas, like my patch in Tassie, can be some of the most disadvantaged. They often have to fork out for transport, parking and accommodation costs to do the placement on top of undertaking an unpaid placement. It's been said time and again that we are in a cost-of-living crisis. It's clear that we can't keep asking people to work for free when all they're trying to do is seek an education—an education that would lead them to fill critical workforce shortages.</para>
<para>The Universities Accord interim report suggests that we should consider some kind of financial support for students required to undertake a practical placement. Constituents have suggested that maybe we could look at expanding youth allowance or Austudy, but I think any increase like that would be marginal, and it wouldn't go far enough in supporting students and providers. And what about those students who can't access youth allowance or Austudy? Providers also need to be incentivised, because without quality practical experience in the field our students and industry suffer, and our broader community suffers.</para>
<para>So here's what I think we should do. The federal government should give funding directly to placement providers to pay students for their placement work. The providers can decide what wage they want to offer students, but they'd be required to pass on at least a minimum wage. I know what you're thinking: if we're telling businesses that they need to start paying for student placements on top of everything else, they're not going to be able to afford it. They'll just choose not to put on any students. So, part of the funding from the government should be a kickback to the provider for taking on student workers. The government already offers incentives for companies that take on apprentices, and this scheme could be similar. These payments would be passed on to both public and private placement providers, as long as these providers meet the required educational standards to host a placement.</para>
<para>Universities should adjust to a new model, too. If students are out in the field it means they're not sitting in the classroom, attending lectures and requiring university resources. Universities shouldn't be charging students the same fees for placement units as they do for units in the classroom. A cap of 25 per cent should be placed on universities for all practical placement units. This stops universities making money from students for units where the bulk of the learning is provided by an external organisation or institution.</para>
<para>It's pretty clear that we need to reform the way mandatory practical placements are done. Teachers, nurses and paramedics are some of our most essential frontline workers, and if we say they can do these jobs only if they can afford not to pay their rent for six to 12 weeks then why would anybody do it? If people want to work in these fields we should be rolling out the welcome mat, not making it impossible for them to succeed before they even start. Our first message to new students shouldn't be, 'You don't deserve to be paid.'</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HENDERSON</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank Senator Tyrrell for bringing this issue to the Senate. Cost-of-living pressures on university students is of course a very important issue. Many students are battling to pay the rent and to put food on the table. So I really appreciate your raising this issue, Senator Tyrrell. Certainly I have also spoken with many groups, including students, who have raised these concerns. Student placement so often occurs in the health sector. So, whether a student is studying nursing, OT or some other allied health course, often they are required to do a practical placement in the workplace, and of course with that comes a very significant cost.</para>
<para>That cost is made so much worse because under this government, because of Labor's cost-of-living crisis, we have seen a 7.1 per cent increase in HECS debts apply from 1 June. That has driven up the average cost of a HECS debt by $1,700 a year, and that is impacting more than three million Australians. We know that Australians right across this country are suffering under this government. The cost-of-living crisis, whether it's paying the rent, paying the mortgage, putting food on the table or paying the power bill, is excruciating. Frankly, it is the only thing people are talking about in the communities and in their families. So, as I said, I want to thank Senator Tyrrell for raising this issue.</para>
<para>I have to say, students in rural and regional communities face even greater cost-of-living pressures, because it's not just the pressures of day-to-day living. If you live in a city and go to university in that city, if you are a regional or rural student, or you come from a remote area, so often you are facing an additional cost of many thousands of dollars. Of course, there is support for students. There are a range of different supports for students that the government provides, but it is simply not enough. My concern, as the shadow minister for education, is that this is going to be more and more of a disincentive for students to take up study.</para>
<para>The government talks big on universities and the government talks big on opening the door to students, yet the government has failed to address this issue. The government has failed to even deal with the situation at the moment with the outdated HECS payments system. If you are a student at university and are repaying your HECS debt in real time, those payments are not being accounted for until the end of the financial year. That is appalling. I have raised this with the ATO commissioner. The education minister has promised and committed to do something about it, yet we have seen absolutely no action. Where is the HECS payment reforms that this government promised?</para>
<para>Before the last election the Labor Party were full of promises. They promised cheaper mortgages. They promised lower inflation. They promised not to touch franking credits and not to raise taxes. They promised to cut power bills by $275 a year. The reality is that, under Labor, all Australians are hurting. Under Labor, Australian university students are hurting. I condemn this government for its lack of action when it comes to cost-of-living relief for Australian university students.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>FIRST SPEECH</title>
        <page.no>55</page.no>
        <type>FIRST SPEECH</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Kovacic, Senator Maria</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier today, I call Senator Kovacic to make her first speech. I ask, senators, that the usual courtesies be extended to her.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator KOVACIC</name>
    <name.id>306168</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I stand before you to deliver my maiden speech as a senator. I'm humbled and honoured to have been entrusted with this responsibility, and I'm committed to serving the interests of New South Wales and Australia with dedication and integrity. I have the deepest gratitude to the New South Wales Liberal Party and our members for this opportunity, to those who have supported me and placed their faith in my ability to be a voice for change. This is a unique opportunity to serve my country, and I do not intend to waste it.</para>
<para>I remain acutely aware that my arrival in this place has come in the shadow of sadness, as I fill the vacancy that was left by the late senator Jim Molan. Senator Molan left an indelible mark, both through his contributions on the floor of this chamber and in his life of service. Jim was a distinguished soldier and military commander, an honourable senator and a tireless advocate for a stronger and more secure Australia. His legacy is an example to us all.</para>
<para>Australia has long been a nation of opportunity, and these opportunities have blessed my family. I am the daughter of Croatian migrants. In his early 20s my dad left his home in the small village of Turcinovici in what is now Bosnia and Herzegovina. He was a refugee of the Cold War, forced to flee because a Communist government took away the freedoms and rights that we too often take for granted in Australia—the right to speak freely, the freedom to worship the god of your choice and the right to earn a living through your own endeavours.</para>
<para>He arrived at the Bonegilla migrant camp in Victoria to an unknown country, an unknown people and an unknown language. But, buoyed by this new land of opportunity, he rolled up his sleeves and he got to work. He picked fruit in Mildura, cut cane in North Queensland, mined opals in Lightning Ridge, laboured on the Snowy scheme and, as I discovered only a few years ago, worked in the asbestos mines in Wittenoom. He did what he needed to make a living, without fanfare or victimhood.</para>
<para>After he settled in Canberra he met my mother, Luca, whose story is a different kind of brave. She grew up in the small town of Misi, near Livno, some 100 kilometres from my father's home town. Her own father died during the Second World War, leaving her young mother with four small children. Their uncle took them in, but they all had to work to earn their keep. My mother had only two years of education. Being both female and poor, education was a luxury preserved for her only brother. My mother's daily job was to tend sheep, and she had many lively tales of battling antagonists, such as a story about a two-headed snake, which she tells us she felled with a rock to protect her flock! As we laughed, she insisted it was a true story—you will have to ask her later. Her determination and sharp intellect defy her lack of formal education, and she laid the foundations for the person that I am today.</para>
<para>For my parents to make that choice to leave their home to move to the other side of the world was an act of extraordinary courage and confidence to seek a new life and opportunity. And for Australia to welcome my parents and the hundreds of thousands like them was the act of a country with extraordinary courage and confidence—to give a new life and opportunity. My brother, Mirko, and I were fortunate to be born here in Ngunnawal country and to be part of Australia's multicultural history. With a deep respect and regard for our Croatian roots, we are first and foremost proud and grateful Australians. I acknowledge my beautiful parents: my mother, Luca, in the gallery today, and also my father, Ivan, who is unable to be here due to his ill health. Hvala Tata i Mama. I acknowledge also my mother's sister, my much-loved Tetka Zorka, and my beautiful mother-in-law Barbara, both kind and resilient women.</para>
<para>Our parents taught us to think about the future and not to simply accept things the way that they are: to seize opportunities, to be change-makers and to fight for things that matter. This is my family history, my story and the fabric of who I am. It is special to me, but it is not unique. It is a migrant story, one that I share with millions of Australians. Together, these stories are a part of Australia's history, sitting alongside the experience of our Indigenous First Peoples, with over 65,000 years of culture and custodianship of this land, and our British heritage and its institutions which we have inherited. This is the story of Australia: a tale of courage, hope and opportunity.</para>
<para>I was born in Queanbeyan and grew up in Canberra. During my teens, every Sunday we drove to church and I watched as something very special rose into existence. It captured my attention and awe, and it really felt special. It was the evolution of this building, our Parliament House, that rose before me between 1980 and 1987. That girl on her way to church might have dreamt, but never would have believed, that she would one day be a part of the decisions that were being made here. And in making those decisions, I will be guided by principles of liberalism.</para>
<para>I'm proud to be a progressive liberal. At the heart of that liberalism is a belief in the inalienable rights of the individual's personal and economic freedoms. I believe in the freedom of speech, religion and association. I believe in universal access to education and each person's right to seek work and to start their own business. That makes free markets and competition, and that's simply an expression of free people—that we must have the freedom to choose the way we live our own lives without fear of discrimination or exploitation; that every person must be treated equally before the law, irrespective of their gender, their culture, their religion, their sexuality, their wealth or their privilege. These rights are inalienable, not because a government or a politician says they are but because they are an essential part of our humanity. It is the protection of these rights that must be the central concern of good governance. I say to my new colleagues that we must be vigilant against threats to Australian liberalism from both right-wing populism and left-wing preoccupations with an equality of outcomes. Modern challenges are changing the role of government: national security threats, climate change, unbridled big tech, inflation and economic uncertainty all require government action because it is only as a collective that we can address these problems.</para>
<para>At the same time, the challenges Australians face in their day-to-day lives demand a government that is focused on policies which empower the individual and the family by extending and enlarging opportunities. 'Opportunity' means giving people real control over their own lives, by shifting power from Canberra to the individual. This means reducing the size of government and sharpening its focus on the root causes of disadvantage and inequality. It means policies which are focused on people, not on protecting vested interests. I am here to set an agenda of opportunity—opportunity that helps Australians achieve their own goals. Opportunity comes in many forms, but I believe its foundations lie in key pillars that are crucial for building our nation's future: home ownership, small business and women's economic participation.</para>
<para>I spent the better part of the last two decades working with people to help them buy their own homes, to realise the great Australian dream. This was my world before politics. I've seen firsthand how difficult it is for young Australians to buy their first home. Simply working hard does not appear to be enough anymore. Average property prices as a multiple of wages have more than doubled over the last 30 years. The task of saving for a deposit is even more challenging when rents are also on the rise. As a consequence, if you are under 40 you are less likely to own a home today than at any other time in the modern era. This has a financial and a human impact.</para>
<para>Australians want the security and comfort that come with home ownership. The issue of housing strikes at the very heart of our community's wellbeing and stability. The boom in house prices is driving wealth inequality between property owners and renters and exacerbating intergenerational inequity between young and old. Those who are not part of the very wealthy struggle to break into the market and have to live further away from their childhood homes, their jobs and established community links. I want Australians to be able to own a home. I do not believe that expansions in government-owned public housing will ever be enough to be a serious solution to this crisis. Moreover, government housing will not give people the stability and security that come with having a home to call your own.</para>
<para>It is our duty as leaders to explore innovative policy solutions that balance the aspirations of the next generation with the realities of our housing market. We must allow Australians the choice to unlock and access their own money to buy their own homes. It is an uncontested fact that owning your own home in retirement—not your super balance, but owning your own home—is the single most important factor to ensure living with security and dignity. Yet we cannot access some of our own savings to actually buy our own homes.</para>
<para>This is particularly the case for women over 55—the fastest-growing cohort of homeless in our country. A woman over 55 in crisis, or any person in crisis for that matter, can access their super for emergency expenses but not for a deposit to buy their own home. How does that make any sense at all? You can spend it, but you can't invest it in an asset that will bring you security. It is a counterintuitive government policy which hinders the individual and economic empowerment of Australians, especially women.</para>
<para>The federal government must do more to ensure the supply of homes is increased. The key is to incentivise state and local governments that are prepared to take on more housing, by offering funding for transport, better infrastructure and protection of existing open spaces. We should not be afraid to consider tax changes, whether they be capping the number of properties that can be negatively geared, working with the states to replace stamp duty or, at a minimum, correcting decades of bracket creep. A serious plan by this parliament has to deal with the housing crisis and would go a long way to restoring the electorate's faith in political leadership solving big problems and delivering reform.</para>
<para>I believe that economic freedoms are just as important as personal freedoms and that the opportunity to start your own business should be encouraged. Founding and running my own financial services business was one of the most rewarding things that I have done, but my business began in difficult circumstances. While I was blessed to have three children by the time I was 25, life has many twists and turns, and a few years later I found myself a single mother burdened with substantial debts. Soon after that, I received an eviction notice for the house I was living in with my children. I was alone, had no money and was soon to have no roof over my and my children's heads. It was a turning point in my life. As I sat on our front steps of that rental home clutching that notice I wept, but I promised myself and my children that I would never find myself in that situation again.</para>
<para>Like my parents before me, I seized an opportunity in the most difficult of times. I worked hard. I worked long hours and on weekends, writing mortgages and small business loans all over Western Sydney, and I built a future for myself and my children. That is the transformative opportunity that small business provides.</para>
<para>Small and family businesses are the backbone of Australia. They create jobs and invigorate local communities. Whether they are a company like mine or a local shop, a community pharmacy, a sole trader or a startup working on cutting-edge tech from the founder's garage, small businesses fuel economic growth, innovation and creativity. Yet these enterprises are increasingly at risk and face an array of hurdles from bureaucratic red tape to uneven market competition. As a nation, we must recognise their vital role and provide them with the necessary support not only to survive but to grow and succeed.</para>
<para>While there is no silver bullet that will help small business, we must do more to ensure our markets are competitive and monopolies are broken up, regulations are streamlined, funding options are accessible and assistance is tailored, such as inclusion in government and commercial procurement. I will always advocate for a tax system that fosters entrepreneurship and rewards risk.</para>
<para>Before entering this place, much of my community work has been focused on the economic empowerment of women. With my friend Amanda Rose, I cofounded Western Sydney Women. Our goal was to support all women to build financial literacy and enter the workforce, from helping identify jobs and manage money to preparing resumes and even organising clothing for job interviews—creating the foundations for a better future. Amanda's unwavering support and commitment has impacted the lives of many women, including my own.</para>
<para>Understanding your financial position can be a great liberator. I've seen firsthand that a job not only gives an income to support yourself and your family but is also a chance to build a future and a meaningful career. Women's participation in the Australian economy is an imperative. The untapped potential of women in the workforce is a resource that, when harnessed, can drive our nation's prosperity. We must address systemic barriers, from the exorbitant costs of child care and the lack of parental leave support to the gender pay gap and underrepresentation in leadership roles.</para>
<para>A family should not have to do the math as to whether mum or dad—and, let's face it, it's usually mum—can afford to go back to work after a baby arrives. It is troubling that the cost of two children in child care absorbs almost the entirety of the average after-tax female income. While many women may rightfully choose to stay home, particularly in the early years, I believe this should be a choice, not a predetermined financial impost. We should explore new policy solutions like tax deductibility of childcare costs, particularly for small and family business owners, and remove red tape, which drives up costs for private operators. Good social policy can also be good economic policy—again, the remit of courageous leadership.</para>
<para>I acknowledge a broader issue in our politics relating to how we speak about, and the importance we place on, issues that predominantly affect women. It is often felt that, while women were speaking up, Canberra was not listening, resulting in real frustration with politics. This is a longstanding problem that persists over multiple governments.</para>
<para>There are no simple solutions here, but I am proud to be part of a wider network of women and men within my party focused on this challenge. I acknowledge the contributions of Charlotte Mortlock, Natalie Ward, Jacqui Munro, Sally Betts, Jane Buncle, Gisele Kapterian, Clare Batch, Rebecca Vonhoff and Alex Schuman for being the driving force that each of you are.</para>
<para>In the world of politics, it's easy to get lost in the chaos and challenges, and in self, but I stand here today with a heart full of gratitude, knowing that I couldn't have reached this point without the support of the people who fill this gallery. I'm grateful to my friends Julian Leeser and Matt Kean, who saw me when others didn't. We are fortunate to have a person of Julian's character in our parliament. Matt is another person of conviction, a fellow Liberal fighter for the environment and women's economic empowerment. I acknowledge all of our broader local Liberal family, in particular Brian Jepsen, Andrew Jetson and Ray and Penny Becchio. I am thankful to James Wallace, Trent Zimmerman, Alex Hawke, David Begg and Andrew Bragg, all of whom provided invaluable support and guidance to me and backed me in when it mattered the most.</para>
<para>To my wonderful team: how lucky am I? You are each brilliant in your own way, and I am grateful for your commitment and support. To my brother, Mirko, his beautiful family and my much-loved cousins and friends: I want to express my deepest thanks to all of you for being my steadfast allies and pillars of strength. To my husband, Glenn: well, blue team got interesting! Thank you for standing by my side and for walking with me through life's many challenges and adventures, not the least of which was embarking on this political journey. We share a beautiful blended family: Ana, Iva, Jack, Kate, Ricky, Joe and Eliza, and, of course, two beautiful grandchildren, Milo and Zoe. Thank you to each of you for your love, support and encouragement. But I want to say something in particular to my daughters, Ana and Iva. You are the living definition of my purpose. Without you I would not be here today, no question. Every time I thought I couldn't, you were the reason I could. When things became impossibly hard, you were the reason I continued. By your own example you each gave me the courage and the strength to keep fighting so that one day I could stand here and start fighting for others.</para>
<para>To my new colleagues: I'm mindful that the respect and trust of the electorate can only be achieved if we work together to earn it by making policy that creates opportunity for all Australians—that opens up each person's own pathways to prosperity and security. It is not only our role, Madam President, but our responsibility—our duty—to make this happen.</para>
<para>I conclude with the words of one of the first women to sit in this parliament, the great Liberal Dame Enid Lyons, who has captured a sentiment that strikes me as I begin this journey:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I hope that I shall never forget that everything that takes place in this chamber goes out somewhere to strike a human heart, to influence the life of some fellow being, and I believe this, too, with all my heart that the duty of every government, whether in this country or any other, is to see that no man, because of the condition of his life, shall ever need lose his vision of the city of God.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Thank you.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</title>
        <page.no>59</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Higher Education: Practical Placements</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GROGAN</name>
    <name.id>296331</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to thank Senator Tyrrell for raising this issue, an issue that is deeply important in the context of the skills crisis that we are facing in this country, particularly given that this is an issue that, along with so many other issues, was ignored by the previous government for nine very long years. Let's not forget that, as well as ignoring this particular aspect of people's education and the development of skills in this country, they also doubled the cost of numerous degrees, making it so much harder for students. Then, of course, there were the changes to HECS. All of these things have created an environment where our higher education system is in need of extreme amounts of repair.</para>
<para>We have many students, in courses like nursing, teaching, early education and social work, who are required to undertake a set number of hours of placement in their area to be able to graduate appropriately from their degree. These placements are frequently unpaid, and they can be for significant periods of time. Notably, studying nursing requires up to 800 hours of placement, teaching requires 80 full days of placement, and social work requires up to 1,000 hours of placement. We find that the careers where placements are required are significantly female-dominated industries. For example, 92 per cent of workers across early childhood education and care are female and are required to undertake placement. Eighty-six per cent of workers across residential aged care are female, as is 76 per cent of the school workforce and 68 per cent of the disability workforce. This is overwhelmingly focused on females building their career and having to deal with the challenges that they have on placement.</para>
<para>We also know that placements have a disproportionate effect on people on low SES backgrounds. As is always the case, those with less get impacted more and struggle more, and we need to be looking at structures to change that. So the Labor government, having a deep and abiding respect and commitment to higher education, to TAFE education, to vocational education of all sorts, and to addressing our skills crisis, has undertaken a range of steps to start trying to address this challenge.</para>
<para>The universities accord panel has handed down its interim report and it's great to see that there are some good strategies proposed in that interim report. The interim report is just the essential things for now. The final report will be in December. It has had spectacular engagement and is coming up with excellent strategies to address some of these issues that we have seen festering and getting worse over the last 10 years. The placement issue was specifically referenced in the accord, so I, like Senator Tyrrell, are quite excited about what the future might look like in addressing some of these deeply challenging and concerning issues.</para>
<para>In addition, the government is working with education ministers across the country to consider the findings from the teacher education expert panel. Obviously, teaching is just one area where placement is an issue but it is a significant one. The impact of unpaid placements on those students is something that those education ministers are looking very, very seriously at and have already come to in-principle supports. One of those is a national practical teaching guideline by the end of 2023—only a couple of months away—establishing a system wide coordination of practical experience and undertaking work to increase the systemic investment in this area. We are making progress. It is a critical area. We have a great deal of positivity about how this may play out, but let's not forget that this is off the back of 10 years of abject ignorance of the issue and of the needs of this country to develop the skills we need into the future and that is at the foot of the coalition and their time in government.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARUQI</name>
    <name.id>250362</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Tyrrell, for putting up this MPI. This is something close to my heart as well because placement poverty is a pressing issue and it has become even more urgent in the cost-of-living crisis. A big shout-out to Students Against Placement Poverty, who are running a national grassroots campaign for placements to be paid. Unpaid placements form part of a really cooked system of education that exploits student labour. We can't keep turning away when we know that students are forced do thousands of hours of unpaid placement work. These placements are often required for those studying and training to become essential workers, those who showed us during COVID lockdowns that it is only with their labour that we can have a functioning society with the most vulnerable among us being looked after. We are training these people and then forcing them during that education to work for free. Hundreds of thousands of students across the country are required to complete unpaid mandatory work placements as part of their study.</para>
<para>Placement poverty is gendered. Placements are especially common in feminised fields of study—teachers, nurses and social workers. Social work students have to undertake a thousand hours of compulsory placement and teaching requires more than 500 hours. On top of forgoing their income and not being paid for their work, students often have to fork out cash for travel, for parking and sometimes for professional clothing, leaving them out of pocket yet again. It's particularly tough for students with parenting responsibilities or those who are already marginalised in society, including First Nations people and migrants.</para>
<para>According to a survey by the Australian Council of Heads of Social Work Education, students are feeling exploited. They're being used to fill labour shortages in organisations and provide free labour. One student reported, 'I spent the majority of my time cleaning out homes and transporting clients.' This is harmful. This is just plain wrong. Students are being burnt out before they even begin their careers and are left with absolutely no time to have a life outside of work, and they end up being shackled with massive student debts. How is this fair? How is this equitable? Students should not be forced to provide their labour for free.</para>
<para>The immense financial, physical and emotional toll of student debt and unpaid placements is forcing people to drop out of university. This not only crushes their dreams of studying but also means we have fewer teachers, fewer nurses, fewer engineers, fewer social workers and fewer people in other professions we desperately need. There is a pretty straightforward solution: pay students for these placements. Students should be able to study for free and be paid for mandatory placements—no ifs, no buts.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>298839</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>During the cost-of-living crisis, it is exploitation to push students into doing unpaid practical placements. We should be setting up students to succeed, but instead we force them to live in poverty and to balance their work, placement and study commitments. To work in many of our sectors with the most extensive workforce shortages right now, like teaching, students are required to engage in weeks upon weeks—sometimes even months—of unpaid work whilst barely subsisting on poverty stipends.</para>
<para>Decades of neoliberal policies have reshaped universities away from being a public good into operating as corporations in a market. When we shape universities in this way, they are no longer about ensuring students are educationally enriched. It just becomes about numbers and incomes on screens—about shifting blocks of students for revenue.</para>
<para>A decades-long bipartisan commitment to the privatisation of education has also driven thousands of passionate, experienced teachers out of the public education system. With the teacher workforce crisis deepening, we desperately need teachers to stay in the profession, but we also need university students to want to finish their teaching degrees and to join the teacher workforce. But, if their first taste of the profession whilst on prac is months of poverty and a teacher's excessive workload, it's no wonder they don't stick around.</para>
<para>Like my colleague Senator Faruqi, I too would like to express my solidarity with Students Against Placement Poverty, who have been fighting for fairer conditions. Despite the hardship these students are facing, they're still rallying and organising for change.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Tyrrell for bringing this matter of public importance to the Senate, and I support it wholeheartedly. Clinical or practical placements for undergraduate students are integral to consolidating the skills and lessons taught in a formal classroom, but they come at a cost to our students, and that is something that we need to think through, particularly when we're looking across Australia and seeing people with jobs facing the cost-of-living crisis and doing it tough.</para>
<para>It's very rare to see a placement that's a funded position, and quite often the universities can set their minimum hours with only broad guidance from professional bodies. According to the Department of Health and Aged Care, registered nurses require a minimum of 800 hours unpaid clinical placement. The AMA says medical students require 2,760 hours. Trainee physiotherapists require between 700 and 1,000 hours. For teachers it's 600 hours, and for social workers it's 1,000 hours. A thousand hours is about 25 work weeks, essentially half a year of unpaid work. At the minimum wage, that equates to around $22,000 of free labour. Some may and probably will argue that that's just the cost of learning, but I would remind people that students already pay to attend placements through their university fees and other mandatory requirements such as background checks and booster vaccinations. Placements can extend to up to four to eight weeks at a time, and all the while, a student still has to fund their usual cost of living. Some placements can include the requirement to travel vast distances or to live away from home. Many students must live in a location where they don't have access to their regular employer or employers. It's a great deal of stress that we are putting on our future clinicians at a time when they should be focused on their studies.</para>
<para>It has been put to me that clinical placements are already stressful enough and that with these additional strains we are launching our junior clinicians into their careers in states of mental and financial stress. We hear stories of people not actually finishing their studies, due to the financial stress. I reached out to one clinician today to understand their experience. Here is what they had to say: 'During my placement, we were explicitly told not to work. This was because our placements were 40 hours a week for up to eight weeks, so it wouldn't be safe to work outside this. People do, though, and some worked as nursing assistants or enrolled nurses, where they have a duty of care, which I think is dangerous. But you need money to live, so there's no real escaping it. There just aren't enough hours in the day to do eight hours of placement then paid work and then uni work. And we were often used as paid staff, even though we should have been supervised with everything we did. An understaffed unit is of course going to use the extra hands to their advantage rather than focus on the education and development of those students.' That is just one experience, but I'm sure it will ring familiar with many clinicians across the country who have had to weigh their studies with placements with the regular pressures of life and family.</para>
<para>In a cost-of-living crisis, where young people, particularly students, often feel the pinch most acutely, it is time that we looked at this area. Again, I thank Senator Tyrrell for bringing this to the Senate today, and I hope we can continue this conversation on behalf of the future clinicians that we so desperately need in our health and social services systems.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>One Nation supports the general principle that this MPI proposes, that students should not have to go broke to finish their studies. The medical colleges currently rely on huge numbers of students paying their own out-of-pocket costs and even making thousands of hours of unpaid placements in addition to their studies. The real conversation we need to have, though, is about the artificial monopoly the medical colleges hold over students in this country.</para>
<para>Australia is crying out for health professionals, and the fees to see them are too high for some people. While this is happening, the medical colleges putatively restrict the amount of places available to students, denying Australians a proper supply of trained professionals and ensuring students have nowhere else to turn. We need to have a second look at the medical colleges. And we need to have a look at the universities, who are punishing some people who have completed their academic studies and just need to do their practical courses. The universities are forcing them out because of mandates for COVID injections. That's inhuman—three to four years work and a contract broken.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>296215</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The time for the discussion has now expired.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF URGENCY</title>
        <page.no>61</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF URGENCY</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>296215</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The President has received the following letter from Senator McDonald:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The failure of the Albanese Government to secure affordable and reliable energy, as highlighted in Australian Energy Market Operator's 2023 Electricity Statement of Opportunities, which is resulting in Australians paying some of the most expensive energy bills in the world for increasingly unreliable power.</para></quote>
<para>Is the proposal supported?</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">More than the number of </inline> <inline font-style="italic">senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McDONALD</name>
    <name.id>123072</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The failure of the Albanese Government to secure affordable and reliable energy, as highlighted in Australian Energy Market Operator's 2023 Electricity Statement of Opportunities, which is resulting in Australians paying some of the most expensive energy bills in the world for increasingly unreliable power.</para></quote>
<para>One of the great truisms of government, as well as of business, is that a failure to plan is a plan to fail, and that is exactly what the Albanese government has delivered for Australians. The Albanese Labor government promised Australian households—not once, not twice but 97 times—that it would reduce electricity prices by $275. Not only has the government broken this promise, broken its trust with Australians, but electricity prices are continuing to spiral out of control. It is not just in the home that we're seeing recent increases of around $500; now small businesses are also being hit with these terrific uncapped costs. Businesses tell me, as they would be telling members of this government, that they don't have a choice as to whether or not to pay rent, to pay for electricity, to pay for the insurance. So, what do they have to do? They have to cut wages costs. They have to cut the things they can manage. And that is bad for their business.</para>
<para>This is an extraordinarily bad business government, and it threatens the 30 per cent of people around this nation who are employed in small business. I have a been told that one in 10 Australians are already unable to pay their electricity bills, and it's going to get worse, because this is a dangerous pathway. It's dangerous for households, it's dangerous for business and it's dangerous for all Australians, given that we live in a nation of extraordinary resources. One of our great growth periods was when we tapped into our terrific coal and gas resources to have affordable—in fact, cheap—electricity. It allowed us to invest into manufacturing, into agricultural production, into mining. This is something Labor fails to understand.</para>
<para>In my recent 2½ weeks in Western Australia I saw project after project that has been crippled by a lack of energy supply. Whether they're trying to hook up renewable projects to transmission lines that don't exist or whether they're trying to negotiate the connection of new power sources, they are paying tens of millions of dollars—money that should be going to more employment in their business, to more contractors, to more small businesses for their local-buy content. Instead, it is being wasted on trying to secure what should be our greatest resource: affordable electricity.</para>
<para>There is no plan under Labor to transition to renewable energy—not in a way that is in any way affordable for Australians. I can see those on the other side laughing. Well, they're not paying the bills that mean that people are choosing whether to go ahead with their business, whether to keep people employed. 'Blackout Bowen', the minister from the other house, must be the most incompetent minister of his generation. His failure to manage the energy system, his failure to continue supplying the very affordable, reliable electricity that Australians were able to enjoy means that Labor's energy plan—Australia's baseload power—is shutting down faster than it can be replaced, increasing the risk of blackouts as soon as this summer. Do you know what that means? It means households and businesses are buying generators and filling them up with diesel in order to ensure that they have the basics that we expect for our lives—to be able to keep the fridge on, to be able to keep food safe, to be able to keep an air-conditioner on in a home or, if you have a medical condition, to be able to keep yourself plugged in.</para>
<para>This is an extraordinary situation from a government who should be taking responsibility for Australians but instead gives us this grand rhetoric. These renewable energy projects have instead been stalled. Australians are angry, and rightly so, because they are being sold out by this Labor government—sold out when there is no need for it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GREEN</name>
    <name.id>259819</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm always very pleased to stand in the Senate and talk about energy and talk about our policies as a government, because only an Albanese Labor government is implementing overdue policy reform to deliver cheaper, cleaner, more-reliable energy to our system. And it is difficult to take seriously a motion from a party that led a decade of denial, a decade of delay and a decade of leadership spills based purely on an ideological view that they couldn't settle an energy policy. They had 22 energy policies and three leadership spills—four if you want to throw the Nationals in too—all because they couldn't agree on what we needed to do to fix our energy market, and now they want to come in here and talk to Australians about affordable and reliable energy when we know that for over a decade they failed to do what was required.</para>
<para>While the former government put their heads in the sand and ignored repeated calls to bring on new supply and transmission, we are acting to ensure Australia's energy grid is fit for purpose for the 21st century. When it comes to power bills, we took urgent action to shield Australian families and businesses from the worst of global energy price spikes. Our energy bill relief rebates were targeted to more than five million households doing it the toughest and will provide additional hundreds of dollars off bills for everyday Australians. That is energy price bill rebate relief that those opposite voted against. They voted in this chamber for higher energy prices for Australians doing it tough, and now they want to come in here and pretend that they care about those very Australians and energy bills they are receiving.</para>
<para>I'm glad that we've had an opportunity to talk about AEMO's <inline font-style="italic">2023 electricity statement of opportunities</inline>, which was released last week, because the report was clear, despite the misinformation you might hear today from those opposite, about the Albanese government's plan to turbocharge renewables, which is even more critical than ever following a decade of coalition energy inaction and neglect. The report clearly outlines that the federal and state government policies, including Rewiring the Nation and the Capacity Investment Scheme, are more important than ever, more important than ever to increase supply and reduce the risk of shortfalls across the country. This is an important report and it's one that our government is taking seriously.</para>
<para>It begs the question. I thought, 'Surely this isn't the first time we've seen a report like this published by the energy market regulator,' and it's not. In 2017 the same report was published, and it said that it confirmed the need for additional investments and new approaches to ensure AEMO has a reliable portfolio of dispatchable energy. In 2017 they said that, but did the Liberal-National do anything? Well, I think they were preparing to spill another leadership, but they didn't do anything to make sure that we had dispatchable power. In 2018 the same report was released with the same request for more reliable energy, and those opposite did nothing in government. In 2019 the same report said there was a continued elevated risk of expected unserved energy over the next 10 years as well as forecast tight electricity supply and demand conditions in several states for the upcoming summer, and those in government did nothing in response to that report. The same report in 2020 called for the same risk to be managed, and in 2021 the same report said the NEM will need more generation, storage and transmission than is currently operating, and what did those opposite do? They rolled Michael McCormack when Scott Morrison was looking likely to commit to net zero. That's how those opposite have approached these reports. Our government is approaching this report in a completely different way: by making sure that, when it comes to affordable and reliable energy, our government has the policies and is making the investment to fix the mess left by a decade of division and denial from those opposite.</para>
<para>When it comes to reducing energy bills, those opposite are pursuing the most expensive form of power—nuclear—which will take the longest to build. How's that Collinsville Power Station, Senator Hughes? Have we built the Collinsville Power Station yet, Senator Canavan? We took action to provide bill relief when we were given the chance, but those opposite voted against it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government's plan is to close every coal-fired power station in Australia and replace the dispatchable power they provide with the electricity generated by a combination of solar, wind and stored green hydrogen. What could go wrong? Let's look at South Australia, where the plan is most advanced—so they think! Electricity prices in the state are the highest in Australia, and are increasing at a faster rate than anywhere else in the country. Much of South Australia's energy comes from wind and solar, but in the second quarter of 2023 this required back-up from gas 36 per cent of the time. In short, almost two million people in South Australia would have a been subject to rolling blackouts without natural gas. South Australia's current energy situation represents the future every other state is moving towards, in what can only be called an 'economic suicide pact'. If not coal, gas is essential to back up solar or wind generated electricity but, despite having some of the largest reserves of gas in the world, it's in very short supply in Australia. We keep exporting too much of it and foreigners pay far less for Australian gas than we do. My bill to create a domestic gas reserve, which I have introduced today, would guarantee supply and lower prices.</para>
<para>I now want to return to the government's plan to replace gas with green hydrogen. It's a plan that exists on a paper napkin, pie-in-the-sky stuff, and we have all been there before—namely, with the NDIS. There is no business plan for any part of the hydrogen idea, including restarting the national electricity grid following a major blackout. How do I know that? In September 2016, the first statewide blackout happened in South Australia. The state could not restart its own grid because there was no power to pressurise the gas into a turbine. The power came from an old coal-fired power station in Victoria, one of the few still operating and not being blown up yet. When all the coal-fired power stations are closed, what will we do to restart the grid? The government says that Snowy 2.0 will come to the rescue but, personally, I would recommend all households keep a supply of candles. The project has come to a complete standstill, with the tunnelling machine stuck for more than a year and no resolution in sight. This project is facing a blowout now estimated at $12 billion, thanks to poor policy and business planning.</para>
<para>Before I finish, I want to talk about the plan for green hydrogen to replace natural gas. Again, no business plans are available. This year the government announced $2 billion for the National Hydrogen Strategy, without a business plan or any modelling. This was either brave or stupid. The only beneficiary of the government's subsidy will be billionaire Andrew Forrest. Oh, yes—is he a 'yes' campaigner? Yes! Unless you can produce hydrogen for less than $2 a kilogram, it will never stack up economically. Labor in South Australia has committed more than $600 million to a green hydrogen plant at Whyalla, again without a business case. What could go wrong? The same as what happened to the state in 2016.</para>
<para>Australians need to wake up to green energy fantasies invented by emotionally driven climate change activists and children brainwashed through our educational system, who say the world is coming to an end—fantasies that are not even remotely based on evidence or science but on the vote and financial gains. These are pipedreams driven by green fearmongering. They sound wonderful and they sound too good to be true. That's because they're not true. And the ones who will end up paying for it all with more taxes and record high energy prices will be the Australian people. It looks like we'll have to give up those creamy barista coffees and go back to opening tins of grandma's International Roast! And we'll have to sacrifice a great deal more on the altar of the climate change cult. The people of Australia are fed up with paying the rising costs in electricity. It irks me to hear the Labor Party blame the coalition for the escalating prices in electricity when Labor keep putting 28,000 kilometres of power lines across the country, against the will of the people of this nation, because they're pushing their own agenda that doesn't stack up.</para>
<para>People understand that electric cars won't stack up because we don't have the minerals in this nation after more than one generation to build electric cars. So they're going to control the people in this nation, but the fact is they're destroying this nation. The Greens and the Labor Party are destroying the people of this nation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUGHES</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The anticipation! And I'm a bit disappointed I'm following Senator Hanson; I was fired up to follow Senator Green, and the amount of rubbish that we hear coming from the other side. But then I hear sense coming from Senator Hanson at the far end of the chamber and I start to breathe again. I would like to thank Senator Hanson for getting me worked up again when she mentioned we may not be able to get a coffee anymore—back to International Roast. I can tell you, that is not happening.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGrath</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There is nothing wrong with International Roast!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUGHES</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McGrath, I mean, I know we love a Cheerio and a little cubed cheese, but one has to draw the line somewhere. To hear Senator Green come here and talk about the plans they had and all those wonderful things they were going to deliver through energy. They were going to deliver, if you noticed—anyone playing along at home—hundreds of dollars of savings off the bill. I thought I would remind Senator Green it was $297. That was how much those opposite were going to take off everybody's power bills. Unfortunately, it hasn't quite happened that way. In fact, if you talk to any Australian out there—and we actually do on this side speak to real Australians, particularly Australians who run small businesses who employ people—there isn't a person whose power bill has not gone up. Businesses and Australian households are facing power bills with increases of significantly more than $297 a year, so at no point will we ever see those bills come down.</para>
<para>Thank you, Senator McDonald, for your motion this evening, but we are here to look at the AEMO report, which is interesting. But what is more interesting is when you line it up next to the GenCost report that this government now relies on so heavily. We have Minister Bowen—'blackout Bowen' as he should potentially be known—in the other place whose nickname I heard on 2GB the other day was 'Casanova'. I had a think about it and it is because of everything he touches—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Brown, on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Carol Brown</name>
    <name.id>F49</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask that Senator Hughes withdraw that reflection on Minister Bowen. She knows quite well that she needs to refer to people in the other place by their appropriate titles.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will remind you, Senator Hughes, that I know you were quoting from the radio, but that is also inappropriate, so if you would withdraw the comment without reference to it.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUGHES</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will withdraw, but I need some guidance, because I'm repeating what a nickname is. I'm happy to refer to him as 'Mr Bowen'. Am I allowed to say what his nickname is, or are we not allowed to reference it?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Brown, I'm in control of the Senate.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUGHES</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>How would you—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Across the chamber.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUGHES</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm trying to get a direction.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Excuse me, Senator Hughes, when I explained and asked you to withdraw, I also explained to you that it went to references used in other places—that is, on the radio. So I will ask you to withdraw the comment without making any reference to it.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUGHES</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw. If you listen to Ben Fordham on Radio 2GB, he has a particular name for Minister Bowen and it's really quite funny. I believe it's Ray Hadley who coined the name, which is particularly funny. I will guide you there, since apparently I'm not allowed to reference anything said anywhere. Minister Bowen, I have noticed, is building an industry. We noticed that he said he was going to build solar. He needed solar panels and wind. He needed 22,000 solar panel panels to be built every day and 40 wind turbines every month. When asked at estimates at the beginning of this year—81 days since he made the claims—the department couldn't tell us how many they produced; they only acknowledged they were well behind schedule. We now know there would need to be up to somewhere like eight million a year. They would need to have put in 300,000 by now. We know that at no stage has that been reached.</para>
<para>The industry that Mr Bowen is building—anyone who is a bit of an online investor, share trader, maybe have a look—is the candle industry. I bought some the other day. I will make sure I put them in a cupboard and will probably look to buy a few more, because we are reasonably sure, as summer approaches, and particularly since Queensland is already having a pretty hot day, that we might need a few candles as the blackouts roll out. Senator Hanson just frightened us all by saying that there will be no coffee machine going and we will all be on International Roast, that there will be no Netflix. You won't be at home on your iPad, having it charged up with your Wi-Fi working; no, you will be sitting by a candle. It will be a romantic candlelit evening on a hot summer's night because the power will have gone out because the wind won't be blowing and the sun won't be shining. The demonisation of those opposite of the gas industry is unbelievable. To hear Senator Green go on—here's a little reminder for you all that sit opposite. You're the government. You can say whatever you like about what happened eight, nine or 10 years ago. Well done. Well done, people. We can all do Rudd-Gillard-Rudd too. We were all there at that time as well. But, let me tell you, they are not—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ciccone</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Abbott, Turnbull—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Listen, Senator Ciccone, you interject there, and all interjections, I may remind you, are disorderly.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ciccone</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Not all of them.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUGHES</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>They're all disorderly, Senator Ciccone. But they won't be naming Tony Abbott when it's 42 degrees and the aircon's not working because the wind and solar aren't working. They'll be blaming Mr Albanese and Minister Bowen.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RENNICK</name>
    <name.id>283596</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It pains me greatly to have to rise to speak to this motion today. To think that Australia is now paying for some of the most expensive energy in the world is a complete and utter tragedy. It is the combination of decades of mismanagement of our energy system, no doubt by none other than AEMO, because we have this half-breed Frankenstein set-up of an energy market in this country, where we have the federal government, the state government and the private sector all responsible for electricity. As anyone who works in the private sector knows, when everyone is in charge, nobody is in charge. If we want to fix this, we should go back to the origins of our Constitution and put the states back in charge of energy.</para>
<para>The reason why I'm very passionate about that is, when I grew up in the great state of Queensland, Queensland had some of the cheapest energy in the world. That was under the great leadership of Joh Bjelke-Petersen. I know some of you will go, 'What about the brown paper bags?' Let me tell you: the black tape, the green tape and the red tape are just a legitimised form of corruption in this country, and it's out of control. We got the cheapest energy because we opened up coalmines. We used our natural resources. Yet, here, today, we refuse to use our natural resources. We would rather import renewables from foreign countries than use our own energy here in this country.</para>
<para>I've referred to this many times before in this chamber. Near my hometown of Chinchilla, at the Kogan Creek power station, is 400 million tonnes of coal. That is right there, just below the surface, and the only cost of it is getting it out of the ground and transporting it one or two kilometres to the actual power station. There's also another pad there where you could build another turbine to power Queensland forward. But do we do that? No. I'd like to commend the media statement put out by the member for Fairfax, where he called on the Labor government to scrap its ideological approach to energy. I can't agree with that more, because it is this ideological approach, that somehow CO2 is going to cause global boiling, that is at the heart of this problem.</para>
<para>For the last three or four decades we have been living in the Middle Ages, where knowledge has been completely thrown out the door and replaced by fear, fearmongering and superstition. The reason why we live in such a great country here, with such a high standard of living, is because of the Enlightenment, when scientists went and put down and defined the laws of science. Those laws of science demonstrated, and quantified, cause and effect. If we're going to put this climate change rubbish to bed, we need to go back to basics. We need to sort out our education system and we need to start teaching maths and science again.</para>
<para>This whole so-called crisis can easily be quantified, because CO2 is a gas. Is there a law for the relationship between gas and temperature? Yes, there is. It's called the ideal gas law. It's called PV equals NRT: pressure times volume equals the number of moles by the ideal gas constant by the temperature. I want to know why no-one has ever discussed this before. It's very easy, if you use that algorithm. If carbon dioxide increases by 100 parts a million, that is a one in ten thousand increase. All you have to do is go one in ten thousand by the current temperature of the earth, which is 287 degrees Kelvin, and you get a rise of 0.0287 degrees. All you have to then do is take the specific density of carbon dioxide, which is 1.53, and times that by 2.87 and you get the formula. For every 100 parts per million increase in carbon dioxide you will increase the temperature by 0.043 degrees. Given that carbon dioxide has increased by 140 parts per million, or about by 0.06 degrees, in the last 140 years, I think that is a price worth paying to have brought billions and billions of people out of the dark ages and into the world we live in today. If we're going to stop this rubbish and go back to baseload energy, we need to kill the myth that somehow climate change is going to cause global boiling and bring the world to an end.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CANAVAN</name>
    <name.id>245212</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The chickens are coming home to roost. There is no doubt about that. Over the last decade or so we have madly persisted on seeking to turn our energy system into one that is almost completely reliant on the weather and we're now left with the absurd situation where two Labor state governments in our biggest states announced over the last week that they will subsidise coal-fired power stations. That's the farce that our energy system has descended into. After a decade or so of saying that we don't need coal-fired power anymore because we've got the wind and the sun is free—it's all going to be rainbows and unicorns—we now have the situation where we're having to subsidise old inefficient coal-fired power stations in both New South Wales and Victoria just to keep the lights on.</para>
<para>What is absolutely and abundantly clear now is that the path we're on is a path to ruination as a nation. The path we're on is a path to higher power bills. The path we're on is a path to losing our jobs and our manufacturing industries to other nations who are not as silly as us.</para>
<para>We have been installing solar and wind energy at a rate four times higher per person than North America and Europe. I often hear from the other side that the former government didn't invest enough in solar and wind or in renewable power, but how much is enough? We're running at a rate four times higher than Europe and North America. No country is going further and faster down this route than Australia, and the results are all around us to see.</para>
<para>The other thing I often hear from government senators and members of the other place is that the former government failed because four gigawatts of baseload power came out of the system over that decade or so and only one gigawatt was installed to replace it. That is true. That is a fair criticism of energy policy over the past 10 or so years. A lack of planning and foresight led to the fact that we have almost exclusively relied on power options that we can't rely on all the time. They're not baseload power. Solar and wind certainly are not. Some other forms of power, such as gas peaking plants, are not.</para>
<para>We have shut down our power stations that could run 24 hours a day and we are left with things that run only some of the time. Solar and wind power are basically the dole bludgers of the energy system—they only turn up to work when they want to; they're not there all the time for us—whereas our baseload coal-fired power stations and our hydro, generally speaking, as long as there is enough rain are there for us whenever we need them.</para>
<para>We need to desperately fix that three-gigawatt gap. It has actually grown further since the new government was elected. We just shut down the Liddell coal-fired power station. It was originally 1,600 megawatts and 1,200 megawatts when it shut. So we are down something like four to 4½ gigawatts of power compared to a decade or so ago. Where are we filling that gap from? Nothing the government is doing right now is filling that gap. For all their rhetoric about how terrible the former government was in taking our baseload power, they're doing absolutely nothing to fix that very same gap that they identify in their rhetoric.</para>
<para>There are no baseload power projects that the government is backing right now. There's a gas peaking plant in Newcastle. Who knows what's happening with that? They're not very happy with that. They seem to be going on the go-slow with that. That's not baseload. There is the Snowy Hydro scheme, which is mired in cost blowouts. It may never happen. We're probably not going to see it this decade. So where is the solution? The Australian people are sick and tired of the politics that are being played on this issue. They're paying for it in their higher power bills.</para>
<para>I'm standing here saying the coalition government didn't get it all right but certainly the Labor government is not doing anything to fix it. It's time for us to get real and fix it, and that means—it's a very simple response here—we need to build power stations that are on all the time. That is coal, that is gas, and in the future it could be nuclear as well. Let's get on with building them. I've been saying this for a long, long time. When I first started really campaigning for this, in about 2016, I was told: 'It will take too long to build a coal-fired power station, Matt. It's going to take us five or six years.' Well, it's been longer than that since I started saying this, and the responses we did come up with, like Snowy Hydro, are possibly still a decade away.</para>
<para>Let's get on. The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, no doubt about that, but the second-best time is today. We should stop the politics, stop the rot, stop the excuses and actually build things that work, that we know can save our jobs, that we know can keep our lights on and, most importantly of all, that we know can get power bills down so Australian families can actually manage their budgets.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the motion as moved by Senator McDonald be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [18:20]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>23</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Antic, A.</name>
                <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Babet, R.</name>
                <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                <name>Hume, J.</name>
                <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                <name>Payne, M. A.</name>
                <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>29</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Cox, D.</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                <name>Lines, S.</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                <name>Payman, F.</name>
                <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Polley, H.</name>
                <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                <name>White, L.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names />
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>67</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Consideration</title>
          <page.no>67</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>67</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Environment and Communications Legislation Committee</title>
          <page.no>67</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Additional Information</title>
            <page.no>67</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CICCONE</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Chair of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Senator Grogan, I present additional information received by the committee on its inquiry into the Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>67</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Criminal Code Amendment (Prohibition of Nazi Symbols) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>67</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="s1373" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Criminal Code Amendment (Prohibition of Nazi Symbols) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Committee</title>
            <page.no>67</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CICCONE</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of the Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Senator Green, I table a statement relating to the committee's inquiry on the Criminal Code Amendment (Prohibition of Nazi Symbols) Bill 2023.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the document.</para></quote>
<para>I think it's very important that we actually have on the record of <inline font-style="italic">Hansard </inline>the document that has been tabled. I think it's of great significance to the Serbian community in Australia. As the Deputy Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, I wish to read onto the record of <inline font-style="italic">Hansard </inline>the statement, because this is a very important issue for that community. The statement reads:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In May 2023, the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee (the committee) tabled its report on the Criminal Code Amendment (Prohibition of Nazi Symbols) Bill 2023.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Shortly after tabling its report, the committee received correspondence from the Serbian Council of Australia (SCofA). SCofA raised concerns about a quote at paragraph 2.8 of the report, attributed to the Australian Jewish Democratic Society (AJDS), in which the 'Serbian 3-finger salute' was described as a Nazi symbol.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In its correspondence to the committee, SCofA explained that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The reference to the 'Serbian 3-finger salute' as a Nazi salute is offensive to the entire Australian Serbian community and is a historically wrong, and outrageous mischaracterisation of the symbol. The three fingers that Serbian Orthodox Christians display symbolises 'the father, the son and the Holy Spirit' (the Holy Trinity). The Serbian three finger salute is a spiritual symbol and does not have any political connotations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">On 23 June 2023, the AJDS issued the following apology and clarification on its website:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Jewish Democratic Society (AJDS) apologises to the Serbian Council of Australia and the Serbian community for mischaracterising the religiously-based "three-finger salute". For Serbian Orthodox Christians the fingers symbolise 'the father, the son and the Holy Spirit' (the Trinity) and we recognise its religious significance to Serbs.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In making its submission to the Australian Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs Prohibition of Nazi Symbols Bills 2023, the AJDS should have explicitly distinguished between the Serbian Orthodox three-finger symbol that has first and foremost deep religious and national meaning, and its misappropriation as a racist, supremacist gesture, as was used by the Croatian Ustasha Regime to mock its religious significance during their extermination of Serbs, Jews and Roma during WWII.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The committee has issued this statement in the hopes of clarifying the use and importance of the Serbian 3-fingered salute as a religious symbol, and its misappropriation as a Nazi symbol.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>68</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Legislation Committees</title>
          <page.no>68</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>68</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CICCONE</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Pursuant to order and at the request of the chairs of the respective legislation committees, I present reports on the examination of annual reports.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Community Affairs References Committee</title>
          <page.no>68</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>68</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RICE</name>
    <name.id>155410</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the report of the Community Affairs References Committee on concussions and repeated head trauma in contact sports, together with accompanying documents, and I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the report.</para></quote>
<para>This consensus report is a landmark report in understanding the impact and extent of concussion on Australian sports players. The committee heard tragic stories from athletes whose lives had been shattered because of concussion and from family members who have lost loved ones from the impact of chronic traumatic encephalopathy, CTE, a progressive degenerative neurological disease that results in the decline of memory and cognition, depression, suicidal behaviour, aggressiveness and, eventually, dementia. The people who shared their stories with the committee urged us to push for more action so that others would not suffer in the way that they had, and I thank these athletes and their families for sharing their stories with us.</para>
<para>The committee's view was that there is clear evidence of a causal link between repeated head trauma and concussions and CTE. Our report states:</para>
<quote><para class="block">While important research questions remain regarding the degree of causation and the nature of long-term impacts, these questions should not be used to undermine the fundamental nature of that link.</para></quote>
<para>The stories we heard were heartbreaking. Former professional rugby league player Mr James Graham stated that, although rugby league gave him a great life and many opportunities, he believed that it's likely that it will come at a cost to his health and life span. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Some of this is due to the nature of my sport, due to the environment that I was put into, the attitudes that existed around concussion and my own choices, at times, to carry on and take advantage of a system that allowed me to play six days after being knocked unconscious.</para></quote>
<para>Ms Kirby Sefo, an Australian rugby player, told us that she had sustained in excess of 40 head knocks over her career and spoke about the debilitating symptoms she experiences:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I begin with dizziness and hypersensitivity to light. I lose parts of my vision. I experience a loss of balance and disorientation, followed by heavy fevers and sweats and then severe vomiting. Once the vomiting settles, I'll pass out into a deep, deep sleep that can vary anywhere from 45 minutes, with the longest I've experienced being around eight hours.</para></quote>
<para>Lydia Pingel is a 30-year-old former AFLW player. She told us that she was medically retired from contact sports due to seven concussions she received over three years. Two years on she has a cognitive impairment and suffers from persistent post-concussion syndrome. She said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Subsequently, my life has completely changed due to that. There is no rehab. There are no specific treatments. There is nothing specific, essentially, to what I'm going through or specific to concussion in general.</para></quote>
<para>Ms Pingel also gave evidence about the pressure on her during her career to play on:</para>
<quote><para class="block">A concussion was never taken as serious as any other type of injury like a knee, hamstring, ankle etc. There was no mandatory rehab, no monitoring or follow up care once you had a few days off, did lighter training and said you felt 'ok' and 'fine' to train and play … it was easy to manipulate the club, coaches, physiotherapist, and vis versa especially if you were an 'important player' to be cleared to play and train because what also constituted the recovery period wasn't clear.</para></quote>
<para>Renee Tuck told the committee the tragic story of her brother, former AFL player Shane Tuck:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Shane's CTE and brain disease had been a very slow burn for him up until the last four years of his life … We watched him decline over many years, but the last two years were probably the most tormenting and traumatising for him. Shane had a lot of auditory hallucinations … He slowly ended up on the verge of dementia. By the end, he'd lost motor skills and memory.</para></quote>
<para>Enid Taylor, the wife of the late Barry Taylor, shared with the committee the impact that dementia had on their family. Mr Taylor had played rugby union from under-7s until he was almost in his mid-30s.</para>
<quote><para class="block">He showed signs of a change of personality at around about 60. But prior to that … he had become quite aggressive. Once he was diagnosed with dementia, from then on it was horrendous. … He was aggressive and irrational. It was a madness; it wasn't normal. He eventually became totally dependent, incontinent and the rest, so he went into care where he was for 3½ years until he passed away …</para></quote>
<para>The committee has made some strong recommendations about how to reduce the impacts of concussion, better manage concussion, collect better data on concussion and to support more independent research. The committee recommends the establishment of the national sports injury database as a matter of urgency, noting that this will significantly help address the lack of sports injury data available in Australia.</para>
<para>Another key recommendation is that the Commonwealth government should play a bigger role in supporting and coordinating research into the effects of concussion and repeated head trauma and consider a coordinated and consolidated funding framework for ongoing research.</para>
<para>We heard evidence of legitimate concerns about the evidence of concussion research, financed by sporting organisations. Sports historian Dr Stephen Townsend told us:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The governing bodies of contact sports see the concussion crisis as an existential threat, and they [are] desperate for research which suggests that SRC [sport-related concussion] is less common or less dangerous than is currently believed, or that their efforts to reduce SRC are working.</para></quote>
<para>Dr Reidar Lystad told the committee there have been 'several incidents' of interference from sports governing bodies in research projects that they finance.</para>
<para>The committee heard a lot of evidence about how concussion is managed differently across different sports, which is confusing and is seemingly based on what suits the sport and, arguably, their profits rather than medical evidence, so we recommended the Australian government, in collaboration with medical experts, should develop return-to-play protocols adaptable across all sports for both children and adults that have incurred a concussion or suffered a head trauma.</para>
<para>We heard considerable evidence that players should have longer periods away from playing after concussion. For example, neurologist Rowena Mobbs told us:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In terms of adults, I would generally advocate a conservative path of four weeks off from play, inclusive of that weekend's games.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   …   …   </para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">For kids it should be longer, and there's talk of six weeks.</para></quote>
<para>Other recommendations concern how best to improve community awareness and education, and that national sporting organisations in Australia should explore further rule modifications in order to prevent and reduce the impact of concussion and repeated head trauma. We also recommended that the Australian government, in partnership with state and territory governments, should consider how best to address calls for better health care, including concussion and head trauma guidelines for GPs, suitable general practice consultations for people with concussion and increased training for first aid responders.</para>
<para>Critically, the committee also recognised the need for a best-practice model to provide ongoing support, financial and otherwise, to current and former players affected by concussions and repeated head trauma. Acknowledging the current situation, where professional sportspeople in Australia are generally excluded from workers compensation schemes, the committee considered that professional sportspeople should be covered by adequate insurance arrangements. The situation regarding former players who have been impacted by concussion injuries was summed up by John Hennessy from the Community Concussion Research Foundation, who said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">There's little care for retired players, many of whom are falling through the cracks with no workers compensation, no income protection, and, in many cases, some heart-wrenching stories of personal anguish and of families being destroyed, domestic violence et cetera. There is no support for many of those players from the AFL or AFLW. The care is not there.</para></quote>
<para>Anita Frawley, widow of the late AFL player Danny Frawley, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">What could be of higher priority for the competition than looking after the individuals on whose shoulders the success of the game now stands?</para></quote>
<para>The Young People in Nursing Homes National Alliance submitted that, for people sustaining catastrophic sporting injuries, Australia's existing insurance system offers little hope. They said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… this hodgepodge of funding and insurance arrangements for catastrophic injury means that Australians who sustain catastrophic brain and spinal cord injuries from sporting activity have worse outcomes than those who sustain equivalent injuries at work or on the road.</para></quote>
<para>I, personally, am disappointed that, despite recognising the need for adequate insurance arrangements, the committee fell short of making a recommendation in this area. I want to put on the record that the Greens support the development of a no-fault insurance scheme for sports injuries. I urge the government to take this report very seriously and quickly move to implement its recommendations. I do note, however, that many of the recommendations are couched in terms of recommending that the government 'consider' taking action. I urge the government to move beyond considering and actually act. It is time for the Commonwealth to step up.</para>
<para>In conclusion, as I said, I really want to thank all of the people who submitted to the committee and I want to thank my fellow committee members. I particularly want to thank Senator Lidia Thorpe, who initiated this inquiry when she was a member of the Greens. I know that she is disappointed that she's not able to be here to speak to this inquiry today. I really do commend this report to the Senate and to the government.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COX</name>
    <name.id>296215</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak to the <inline font-style="italic">Concussions </inline><inline font-style="italic">and repeated head trauma in contact sports</inline> report from the Community Affairs References Committee. I thank the committee for its work—in particular the chair, Senator Rice. I echo her comments in relation to the call for action in relation to those recommendations.</para>
<para>Sport is an integral part of Australian life and it has been for quite some time. For decades, Australians have rallied around our favourite teams, our players and our athletes, be it in football, soccer, netball, basketball, tennis, swimming, gymnastics—and the list goes on. We do this at all levels. Every Saturday I take my girls down to basketball and cheer them on. We have eagerly followed the FIFA Women's World Cup and the mighty Matildas, and I take every opportunity I can to attend an AFL match.</para>
<para>According to the Department of Health and Aged Care, 13 million Australian adults and three million children take part in sport each year. Additionally, 3.1 million Australians volunteer in some capacity. Playing sport has a number of social, physical and mental benefits. It is also great exercise and gives you a sense of community. For many, it is a significant part of our lives.</para>
<para>However, there are also a number of risks associated with playing sport, and there are a couple of issues that I want to highlight. Racism in sport is still a huge issue. So is accessibility, both for disabled people and in terms of the costs associated with playing sport. We're in a cost-of-living crisis, and, for many families, participating in community sport can be one of the first items of discretionary spending to be cut to save some money. Injury is another risk. Whether it's a calf injury such as you saw during the FIFA Women's World Cup, a broken collarbone from a tackle gone wrong, a rolled ankle or a concussion—the injury which has been the subject of this inquiry—injuries are very common and often seen as part of sport.</para>
<para>However, we've only just come to terms with the impact of concussions and how people who have suffered from them are treated in their recovery. There have been increased reports of the links of concussion and repeated head trauma to short- and long-term impacts on athletes' health. This includes a link to the neurodegenerative disease CTE, a condition that can only be diagnosed after someone has passed away. Other impacts include athletes suffering from anxiety, depression, psychosis, hallucinations, dizziness and brain fog.</para>
<para>This report details various definitions of concussions that exist, the lack of specific diagnostic tests and how concussions are underreported. The inquiry heard from families who watched their loved ones decline after repeated head injuries. There have been claims made—and, indeed, class actions have been undertaken both in Australia and internationally—that sporting codes have failed to recognise the seriousness of head injuries, despite the wealth of evidence and reporting about the risks, particularly about the long-term impacts. Various jurisdictions have put in place bans aimed at reducing hard tackles or using one's head in a game, such as during soccer.</para>
<para>We see far too often, at every level of competition, players suffering a knock to the head, leaving the field just for a couple of minutes and being eager to get back on, placing their health and wellbeing at risk to continue to play the game they love. Sometimes, they get straight back up and continue playing without even taking a break. For a very long time, we didn't know what the impacts were, but now we are seeing them. Unfortunately, it is too late for some. But there is still time to protect players at every level from the consequences of concussions and head trauma. We are seeing progress, but it's not coordinated, nor is it progressing fast enough. We absolutely can't let our love of sport place people at long-term risk of repeated head trauma. We need to make sure that we can protect our kids, and we need to protect, in particular, our athletes.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PRATT</name>
    <name.id>I0T</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I also rise tonight to speak on the serious issues raised in the Senate Community Affairs References Committee's <inline font-style="italic">C</inline><inline font-style="italic">oncussion </inline><inline font-style="italic">and repeated head trauma </inline><inline font-style="italic">in </inline><inline font-style="italic">contact </inline><inline font-style="italic">sport</inline><inline font-style="italic">s</inline> report. The recommendations and the actions put forward by the committee are indeed significantly important and do require consideration from the government. But I have to say that the issues put forward are more than a matter for government. If the government were to implement these recommendations in full, they wouldn't be enough. That is essentially because this is a cultural issue around how Australians play their sport and respond to it. There is a simple matter at hand. We do need significant cultural change in how codes, communities and players—children and adults—respond to concussion and its seriousness both on and off the field.</para>
<para>But it's not just in our contact sports. We have a lot of debate here about football and rugby, but some of you might be surprised to know that the largest number of concussions occurs in sports like cycling. That's of little surprise when you take into account roadside accidents. There are also falls from horses. Of course, that is not to underplay the focus on contact sports and the issues people experience as a legacy of concussions during their sporting careers. Some people have lived with the legacy of those impacts for a long time. That is in part what was highlighted to the parliament through our inquiry. But the impact of repeated concussion and traumatic brain injury belongs to a wide range of sports, and all sporting codes—and, indeed, the community more broadly—need to respond to this.</para>
<para>So what happens when a child gets a concussion on a Saturday, during their weekend game? Well, that child and their family could say, 'Come on, be tough and play on,' when in fact the child should be stood aside not just from that sport but also from bright lights or the risk of any other injury for at least a couple of weeks. The sporting code might say, 'You can't come back for a couple of weeks, Johnny; not until you've served the period set down.' But who lets the school sports teachers know or the basketball team know? This is much more than just an individual sporting code's responsibility. We really need to empower parent volunteers and get them to be serious about their obligations.</para>
<para>My next-door neighbour goes to her son's footy, and she was telling me about a recent concussion. Indeed, she is the first aider for her son's football team and was responsible for making sure that that child got appropriate medical attention. Has she been trained in that? No. Has she been briefed on her obligations in that regard? No. This is despite the fact that there is clear evidence that many sporting codes are trying to lift the standard, train their volunteers to respond at a community level.</para>
<para>The point I'm putting forward is that governments can have the best data in the world but none of that will help the very needy victims of concussion further down the track. The best cure is prevention. We need to have strong preventive approaches in our sporting codes. In our report we have recommended that sporting codes consider the extent to which rules of play could be affected by the need to respond to concussion. That could include putting into the rules of the sport the need to step aside from play after a concussive event, or it could include, as is already the case in children's sport, the need to further change sports rules so that fewer concussions occur.</para>
<para>That notwithstanding, we still need to enable a much more robust response to concussions when they occur. We must help Australians prevent repeated concussions and we must make sure they get the right diagnosis. When in doubt, sit them out. If you don't know whether or not it's a concussive event, you need to apply the rule that says a player must sit it out, and they must be supported to take precautions in all of the different aspects of their life.</para>
<para>There were a great many really significant issues canvassed in the course of this inquiry. I really want to underscore what we heard from the witnesses we spoke to about the terrible, debilitating impact of concussion on people who've experienced it, from people who, in some cases, had had a single head injury playing sport—and we've seen occasions where that has resulted in death—to people who had multiple concussions during their professional careers and people who became professional but whose professional careers were short, largely because they had sustained a significant number of concussions while they were playing sport recreationally.</para>
<para>Many of these incidents can be prevented. I know people are reluctant to change the rules of their sports et cetera, but we really need a serious dialogue about the integrity of sport to promote injury prevention. I've noticed that players are now starting to look to insurance for concussive injuries. If they insist, for example, that their codes support them to get insurance, and if that insurance becomes too expensive, then the codes are going to have to look seriously at how they go about preventing those concussions. If you can insure someone's legs, I don't see why you shouldn't be able to also insure them against head injuries. So I really want to use this opportunity of the tabling of this report to underscore our recommendations—to government but also very much to the broader community, to sporting codes, to state governments and to players and their families—about all the preventive actions that we need to take.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Colbeck, do you wish to make a contribution?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Just a very quick one. Acknowledging that the mover of the motion that brought this report about is not available to be here, I seek leave to continue my remarks later so that the document may stay on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline> for further opportunity.</para>
<para>Leave granted; debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Education and Employment References Committee</title>
          <page.no>72</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>72</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BARBARA POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>BFQ</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In respect of the Education and Employment References Committee report <inline font-style="italic">Potential impacts of the Commonwealth Paid Parental Leave scheme on small businesses and their employees</inline>, which was presented out of sitting, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the report.</para></quote>
<para>Australia has one of the weakest paid parental leave schemes in the OECD in terms of pay rates and the length of paid leave. Even with the recent changes to paid parental leave, Australia still offers only half the OECD average of 52 weeks of leave for new parents. The main recommendation made in this report—to outsource the payments of parental leave income to Services Australia for small businesses rather than have it being directly administered by those businesses—risks undermining the integrity of our Paid Parental Leave scheme. As someone who has worked and advocated with thousands of other women and mothers for a good paid parental leave scheme over recent decades, I am deeply disturbed by this report and the way it would, if acted on, take our Paid Parental Leave scheme backwards for decades.</para>
<para>In this country, businesses of all sizes are required to provide minimum standards and minimum entitlements to workers: a minimum wage, health and safety standards, annual leave, sick leave, superannuation and many other important protections at work. All of these entitlements cost time and money to administer, but they are also just part of the cost associated with hiring human beings to work. Whether they're working in an office, labouring on a farm, providing care for the elderly, building houses or teaching kids in a classroom, and whether they're in a big workplace or a small one, workers in all of these situations are entitled to a safe workplace, a living wage, sick leave and a holiday, all administered by their employer. Why would we separate out responsibility for the administration of the workplace entitlement of paid parental leave from any other requirement on small businesses? Why would we do this for a workplace entitlement that particularly assists new mothers and women?</para>
<para>The cost of administering paid parental leave is not just part of doing business—it also has significant implications for the workplace, the workforce and, especially, for women. Small business is a really important employer in our country—27 per cent of employees' jobs are in businesses that employ fewer than 20 people. That's an equivalent to around five million workers. Workers in small business are not a tiny pocket of the workforce. They are not a small cohort. They make up more than one in four of those with jobs. So the decision to let small business off the hook on administering paid parental leave is no small decision. It has many effects and risks. We know that women do a disproportionate amount of child-rearing work in Australia, as they do all over the planet. Women make up almost half of all employees in small business, and they make up 88 per cent of people using primary carers leave—like paid parental leave. Carving out administration of paid parental leave for small business would overwhelmingly affect female workers.</para>
<para>Failing to pay paid parental leave as a workplace entitlement paid by the employer threatens to sever the tie between the employer and the worker. Just in case this needs to be emphasised, this is a payment of government money that is simply administered by the employer. We know the connection between the employer and the worker is vitally important to women as they take leave to have a baby, and later as they rejoin the workforce after taking parental leave. The main recommendation in this report breaks this vital link. It stands to further exacerbate gender inequality and it treats paid parental leave as a welfare measure paid for out of a welfare system—not a vital workplace entitlement for employees.</para>
<para>This recommendation ignores the decades of argument that shaped the administrative structure of our paid parental leave system from its inception in 2011. The shape, size and administration of our Paid Parental Leave Scheme has very significant implications for gender equality and labour opportunities for women. Separating out the responsibility of administering paid parental leave income from other leave entitlements for the small businesses in our community would speak volumes about how we as a country value women. We must not roll back the way we manage an important employment condition. Women are workers. Indeed, they make up one in two of the workforce across our labour market and one in two of workers in small businesses specifically—that workforce of five million workers. Their workplace entitlement should reflect and enable their working lives and their caring responsibilities, pregnancies and care of infants.</para>
<para>Taking time out of the paid workforce to care for children is a normal part of parents' life and work for parents. All businesses benefit from the work of those involved in having and caring for kids, and without them we wouldn't have workers to fill jobs or produce the things that businesses—including small businesses—sell. This is why PPL should not be treated like a welfare payment. It's the responsibility of business to administrate, just like any other leave entitlement. Our small businesses face many challenges. They run on thin margins and they face many unpredictable elements around them, but ditching the administration of workers' entitlements that disproportionately affect women is not the solution. This is especially the case when we look to the administration of paid parental leave. We ask small businesses to administer health and safety law, to provide superannuation and to manage minimum wages and sick leave, and they should be managing the payment of paid parental leave in the same way.</para>
<para>Supporting new parents and advancing economic equality for women has to be at the centre of decision-making around paid parental leave in Australia. Allowing small businesses to opt out of administering this basic entitlement for their workers will see Australian women and workers slip even further behind the rest of the advanced world. It would amount to a backward step of significant proportions, and it must be rejected. It was rejected by so many witnesses before this inquiry. Those who represented workers, many women, parents and their organisations all—to a person—expressed serious concern about the consequences of reducing the employer role in small businesses. Many employers themselves are very dismissive of the concerns that were put forward around small business. These views are not represented in the recommendations in the majority report. Real robust research, rather than a few anecdotes, will reveal the benefits for small business and all business out of administering paid parental leave as a workplace entitlement which is the responsibility of employers.</para>
<para>Finally, I want to address another recommendation, and there were just three in this report. The committee recommended that the Productivity Commission conduct an inquiry—and I will quote the terms of that inquiry—'into the impact of the Commonwealth Paid Parental Leave scheme on Australian businesses, including a particular focus on small business'. That inquiry is not about the administration of paid parental leave. Very wide terms are recommended. It's into the impact of paid parental leave on productivity.</para>
<para>We have buckets of research about the benefits of paid parental leave. Very robust, solid longitudinal studies tell us about the benefits of paid parental leave. There are huge benefits for babies. There are very significant benefits for the life chances of children. It's enormously beneficial to mothers. It assists breastfeeding. There are studies from all over the planet on this question that are totally convincing. There is also clear evidence of benefits to the economy and labour supply. We do not need a focus on the productivity benefits for small business—a narrowly conceived inquiry that ignores the huge body of evidence that we have before us. A narrow inquiry particularly focused on productivity is the wrong way to go.</para>
<para>Benefits of an employee entitlement administered as such is established by many reports—report after report, huge academic literature. What we need is an economy and a system of managing paid parental leave that recognises that one in two workers are women. Guess what? They have babies. Guess what? They need a good lie down when they do it and they need the support of their employer and the administration of their payment as they take that leave.</para>
<para>We have to go forward in much more positive ways rather than go backwards. Let's not go backwards. Let's instead look to putting superannuation on paid parental leave and playing catch-up with the rest of the world in moving towards 52 weeks paid leave for Australia's working women at the time that they have a baby that is administered by their employer, regardless of the size of their business. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.</para>
<para>Leave granted; debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Consideration</title>
          <page.no>73</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>74</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of the Treasury</title>
          <page.no>74</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>74</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I table documents relating to the order for the production of documents concerning ASIC.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>74</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>74</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7007" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Returned from the House of Representatives</title>
            <page.no>74</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>74</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee</title>
          <page.no>74</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference</title>
            <page.no>74</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I, and also on behalf of Senator Cadell, move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That, noting the importance of ensuring that the National Electricity Grid has the capacity to provide a reliable and secure supply of energy to Australians as the economy transitions to new and more dispersed methods of generations and storage, and acknowledging that transition will necessarily transgress on agricultural, Indigenous and environmental lands and marine environments, the following matters be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 December 2023:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) power imbalance between Indigenous landholders, farmers and fishers and government and energy companies seeking to compulsorily acquire or access their land or fishing grounds;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) terms and conditions for compulsory access and acquisition;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) fairness of compensation;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) options for development of a fair national approach to access and acquisition;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) options to maintain and ensure the rights of farmers and fishers to maintain and ensure productivity of agriculture and fisheries; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) any other matter.</para></quote>
<para>Previously when moving a similar motion to this we said that we would be persistent in this matter because we believe it is important, and we are true to our word. It's interesting to note—and I take care in reflecting on a vote of the Senate—that a number of anti-industry Senate inquiries have been established in this place of late, supported by both the government and the Greens, but there's genuine reluctance to support motions that are supportive of industry, particularly primary industries. We had a motion earlier today to set up an inquiry to attack development in the Northern Territory at Middle Arm. On the motion of the Greens, supported by the government—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Pratt</name>
    <name.id>I0T</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>How well do you think that would go? It would probably make it harder, not easier!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's interesting that the government seems to want to interject on that. Obviously, the anti-industry elements of the government are at play here. But this is an important motion. We said we would be persistent on this, and we intend to continue to be.</para>
<para>I was in Queensland just a week or so ago, and farmers from as far away as Cairns came to Brisbane to express their concerns about the impact on them and the engagement with them in relation to major energy infrastructure. For those playing along at home, it's further from Cairns to Brisbane than it is from Brisbane to Melbourne; it's a long way to come to express your concerns. But the farmers did that, hundreds of them. They came to Brisbane to express their concerns about the impact of these energy developments on their farms and on their local environment. What we're proposing here is an acknowledgement of the importance of the national grid—and acknowledgement of the importance of the energy system in this country. A strong and viable energy system is a fundamental plank in the strength of the economy and in the wellbeing of Australians. We acknowledge that. This is not an anti-energy or anti-energy infrastructure motion. It never has been, and we have reinforced that in tonight's motion. We want to make that plain in the debate and we want to put to bed accusations coming from the other side of the chamber that that's what this is about. That's not what this is about; we stated that before. But it's now part of the motion to be moved tonight.</para>
<para>We want to understand, as a chamber, how the power imbalance between Indigenous landholders, farmers and fishers and government and energy companies that are seeking to compulsorily acquire or access their lands and fishing grounds works. We want to ensure that there are fair terms and conditions for that compulsory access or acquisition. We want to make sure there's fairness of compensation and also even compensation across the country. We've already heard from individuals around the country that there are variations in this. We've heard from Indigenous Australians that they get less compensation in Queensland than other landowners do. How does that work? Why is it unreasonable that this chamber investigates that as a part of ensuring, as the motion says, that the national electricity grid has the capacity to provide a reliable and secure supply of energy to Australians as the economy transitions to a new and more dispersed method of generation and storage?</para>
<para>This is not an outlandish motion; it isn't an anti-renewable energy motion, but it's certainly one that seeks to understand and properly investigate the rights of landholders and seaholders. It's in that context we make, reasonably, our sixth attempt—our sixth attempt!—at having this Senate inquiry. We don't understand why the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management won't stand up for farmers and fishers in this country and support this motion. Why is that? What are the options to maintain and ensure the rights of farmers and fishers and Indigenous Australians, and to maintain and ensure the productivity of agriculture and fisheries? There are lots of conversations about climate change and lots of conversations about the impact on our natural environment, but we need to remember that each time we pick up and fork each day we're relying on a farmer or fisher to provide the inputs to that. It doesn't matter whether you're a carnivore or a vegan, or anything in between. To eat every day, three times a day—for those of us fortunate enough to do that—we rely on a farmer, and also for the fibre that we use to clothe ourselves. Why has it been unreasonable, five times so far, that this chamber can't ask those questions, that this chamber can't investigate these things? I mean, this is a government that promised to be open and transparent with the Australian people. Mind you, it is a government that's only answered 20 per cent of questions on notice that have been asked of it through the estimates process; although we were told today that's our fault for asking too many questions. I mean, how outrageous. We promised—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Scarr</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If we didn't ask any questions, they'd have a 100 per cent record!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's a very good point, Senator Scarr—if we stopped asking questions, they would have 100 per cent record. But that's not how this government works. They promised one thing when they wanted to be elected but now it's a completely different matter. They promised transparency, but we're not allowed to have that. We saw dozens of farmers sitting here in the gallery a couple of months ago, who took the time to come to parliament, to the people's House, because they wanted to have their voice heard, but this government supported by the Greens doesn't want their voices to be heard through a Senate inquiry. As I articulated, it is not a motion that's about being anti renewable energy; it is a motion that reinforces the need for a strong electricity grid and its importance to Australians in the transition we are currently undertaking.</para>
<para>But it's also a motion about fairness for farmers, for fishers, and for Indigenous Australians. That is what it is about. And it is about what part this parliament, this Senate, can play in ensuring that that is what occurs. We acknowledge states have a significant role to play through the various land acts that apply around the country. Why is it that Indigenous Australians in Queensland seem to be getting a lower rate of return or a lower compensation for access to their lands than others do? Why is the rate different in Western Australia to what it is in Queensland? Why is that? Why it is unreasonable to ask those questions and to assist the parliament and the government to come up with a mechanism that's fair to everybody? That's what we are seeking to do, to give those communities who have taken the time to come to Canberra, to come to Brisbane, to turn up at rallies across Victoria the opportunity to have their say through an investigation into the process. Why won't Senator Watt stand up for those people who want to do that? As Minister for Agriculture, why won't he do that?</para>
<para>Why is it that off the south coast of Gippsland, where something in the order of 20,000 tonnes of fish a year comes from, the fisheries there are likely to be subject to more than 90 per cent of the marine wind farm impacts? That's a significant impact. But why is it that those fishers in those communities aren't able to tell the Senate about those impacts and how we might mitigate them so that we can not only get the benefits of offshore wind, which will be very important for the energy transition in this country, but also ensure that 20,000 tonnes of seafood that is important for supplying Australian communities can continue to be accessed. It's not an unreasonable question. We can have all of these anti extractive-industries motions passed, supported by Labor and the Greens, but dare we ask for an inquiry that supports farmers, fishers and Indigenous Australians to ensure that the impact on them—their land, their communities and their seas—is managed properly and that they receive fair compensation for the changes that are going to occur?</para>
<para>We're not saying that the changes can't or shouldn't occur. The motion acknowledges the importance of ensuring that the national electricity grid has the capacity to provide a reliable and secure supply of energy. It's fundamental to the wealth and wellbeing of this country that it does, but it needs to be done on fair terms. One of the jobs of this place is to ensure that it is. That's all we're asking. We're not being unreasonable. It's not a loaded terms of reference that's anti industry.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Pratt can moan and groan and vote against industry with the Greens. That's great that she does that—coming from Western Australia, which is a huge resource industry-based state—with support from the Greens. We seek—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Colbeck, could you take your seat. At this late hour, it would be helpful for the chamber if we could have the ceasing and desisting of interjections. I have let a few from both sides. Senator Colbeck, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I've been quite measured in my remarks.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Absolutely.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I am entitled to take interjections from across the chamber, even though those interjections may be disorderly. But thank you for your protection, Acting Deputy President; I appreciate it. We're being extremely reason with this process, but we will be persistent because the fairness of outcomes for farmers, fishers and Indigenous Australians is important to us. If it's not important to other side that's their problem—that's their business—but farmers don't come to Canberra for no reason. They don't fly from Cairns to Brisbane which, as I said, is further from Brisbane than Melbourne is. It's a long way. It's a big effort for them to make to come and express their concerns, as they did when they came to Brisbane a week or so ago.</para>
<para>It's not unreasonable that a very reasonable terms of reference to ensure fairness in process and compensation for farmers, fishers and Indigenous Australians should be properly considered by this place. So we will continue to fight for this. We know we are asking reasonable questions. These are not unreasonable terms of reference. It would be wonderful—and I'm sure that farmers around this country and fishers and, for that matter, Indigenous Australians would appreciate the opportunity to have their say in this process so that we can ensure that the process of the rollout of the national grid and expansion of the national grid and all of the other infrastructure that goes with it is done on a fair and reasonable basis with fair and reasonable compensation and some equality of outcomes, as well, which is not what is happening right now.</para>
<para>These are not unreasonable terms of reference. It's not an unreasonable inquiry. We will continue to be persistent in bringing this to the chamber because we think it is fair and reasonable do so.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHITE</name>
    <name.id>IWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Here we are again debating this motion. Already this motion to refer the matter to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee has either failed or been withdrawn on a number of occasions. The coalition are keen on persisting with repoliticising energy policy, so here we are.</para>
<para>The government won't support the motion, because we know the motivations of those opposite are focused squarely on the political, not the national, interest. Their motivations are about whipping up scare campaigns around energy and infrastructure that have no intention of facilitating genuine, meaningful conversation with communities. Of course it's easy for the coalition to push an agenda now that they are out of power. It's convenient for them to bring this motion before the Senate again today and pretend to engage with the energy debate in Australia, because they can claim their intentions are pure but then don't actually have to do anything. But where was the interest and concern with the energy market and the energy infrastructure over the last 10 years of their government?</para>
<para>The coalition had 10 years to deliver nationally consistent energy rules for Australia, but instead they had 22 failed energy policies to their name. They had 10 years to at least punt up something that lasted one term, but they were too incompetent and too divided even to manage that. Even now they have no plan to address the immediate energy needs of this country, so instead they are using this Senate reference to concoct a scare campaign which seeks to somehow position the government as appearing not to listen to regional Australia and First Nations Australians.</para>
<para>Of course, that is not the case. The fact is that the government acknowledges that there is a need for a conversation about building social licence in communities during Australia's energy transition, particularly because many of our traditional energy assets are ageing and, like many things in Australia, suffered under 10 years of coalition government. We know that this is an important issue in rural and regional Australia, and we want those conversations, which is why the Albanese government already announced on 4 July this year a community engagement review in relation to energy infrastructure. This review is led by Andrew Dyer, the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner, and will provide advice on the best way to maximise engagement and benefit in planning, developing and operating energy infrastructure, including for the communities, landowners and First Nations people referenced in the motion we are debating. In fact, the discussion for this review was released just yesterday and is now available on the website of the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. I had a look at that discussion paper this afternoon and, frankly, it really is clearer and more comprehensive than what we are debating right now.</para>
<para>The purpose of the review, and the government's intention, is to seek real feedback from affected communities. That intention is wholly different to what we are hearing in this debate and through this proposed inquiry, which seeks to further politicise energy policy in Australia and allow the Nationals to play political football with regional communities and their needs. After 10 years of not actually delivering energy certainty for their constituents—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Sorry; could you resume your seat? Senator Hughes, what is your point of order? I won't take argument.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Hughes</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This is about the imputations that have been consistently made in this speech about intention—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That is not a point of order. Please resume your seat, Senator Hughes. Senator White, you have the call.</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHITE</name>
    <name.id>IWK</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The work experience kid did not write this speech. This is what is deeply felt—</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHITE</name>
    <name.id>IWK</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, it's embarrassing to have 10 years—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator White, through the chair please.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHITE</name>
    <name.id>IWK</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It is embarrassing, Acting Deputy President, to have 10 years of opportunity that has been wasted. It's probably embarrassing for those opposite to have it pointed out yet again, as it was last time this inquiry was put up.</para>
<para>But it is clear. After 10 years of not actually delivering energy certainty for their constituents, you'd think that the Nationals and the Liberals would take an opportunity to engage constructively in the government's plans to improve community consultation—something they never did.</para>
<para>Beyond the review, which I mentioned was announced in July, the government is doing more to consult and make sure communities are heard. We are partnering with the states, territories and transmission network service providers to improve planning, community engagement and community outcomes for new electricity developments. We have also recently expanded funding for the independent Office of the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner, who works with communities where there are concerns about the development of renewable energy infrastructure projects. The commissioner's role is to refer complaints from concerned community residents about wind farms, large-scale solar farms, energy storage facilities and new major transmission projects as well as to promote best practices for industry and government to adopt with regard to the planning and operation of these projects. It is through this independent body that those complaints and concerns are addressed. It's through this independent body that the government seeks to have conversations and a dialogue with concerned communities about Australia's energy infrastructure future. That is the best way forward when it comes to the matters we are debating here today, not the political circus being proposed by the opposition. What's more, we are also making changes to the National Electricity Rules to clarify consultation requirements for transmission developers, to ensure that development begins at the very start of the route selection process. This will improve community engagement and give stakeholders more confidence and trust in the consultation process.</para>
<para>I also want to make a few points in relation to consultation with First Nations people on this matter of energy infrastructure and electrification. As you would expect from a government that is committed to delivering an enshrined Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament in the Constitution, consultation around projects on First Nations land is a priority for this government. In relation to that, the government is developing a First Nations Clean Energy Strategy to ensure First Nations people have a say in energy policies and programs in the energy transformation. We're working with the First Nations Clean Energy Network and the National Indigenous Australians Agency to deliver this, and I'm confident about this project.</para>
<para>It's also worth mentioning the developments around wind energy infrastructure. The Albanese government is establishing the offshore wind energy industry in Australia in consultation with communities, not in spite of communities. We've declared areas capable of providing up to 15 gigawatts of power in the Hunter and Gippsland combined. That's enough to support 6,000 jobs in construction and 4,500 ongoing jobs. All of these areas are being created with no less than 60 days consultation. The results of the final areas that are declared reflect the genuine consultation that takes place with sea users and other communities where these projects are established.</para>
<para>In my state of Victoria there are a range of exciting wind energy projects either in development or coming online. Frankly, if the coalition were interested in seeing cheaper, cleaner energy in all states and territories they would be supporting those initiatives and working with us constructively. Sadly, this is not to be. As I mentioned, as we transition energy infrastructure that is ageing and tired towards an improved and stronger future of energy infrastructure, partnerships between government and communities will help inform Australia's next stage of energy development and energy security. This is important for the Albanese government's agenda of delivering cheaper, cleaner energy and fighting climate change. On the other hand, it seems that attempting to turn energy policy into another political football is the only trick in the book of the coalition—so much so that they've tried to make this politicised motion happen three times now, showing us that they have no new ideas and it's the same old coalition.</para>
<para>When we were elected, the Albanese government ended the climate wars, which had toppled Liberal leader after Liberal leader over more than a decade. We have no interest in returning to that place and, frankly, the Australian people have no interest in going back to that place. We are taking action on climate change and energy policy, we are leading the way forward in a way the coalition failed to do for more than a decade.</para>
<para>All this inquiry represents is a kneejerk reaction of the coalition to politicise energy policy, to divide Australians along confected political lines and to try to endear themselves to a constituency which, the fact is, they largely ignored for the decade that they were in government. Nevertheless, the government will continue to do the right thing by consulting with communities and progressing our consultation review, thereby delivering on our climate and energy commitments while bringing rural and regional communities and First Nations Australians along with us on the journey.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVEY</name>
    <name.id>281697</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm calling again on the government and the Greens to back our calls for an inquiry into new transmission line builds. In the short time I have, I want to draw the attention of the Greens and the crossbench, in particular, to the report of the New South Wales parliament's inquiry into undergrounding transmission lines. It was a government led inquiry on which 50 per cent of the committee were Labor government members, so of course they found there was nothing to see here, overhead transmission lines are great and our national parks don't matter, our koala habitat doesn't matter, our Booroolong frog doesn't matter.</para>
<para>But Cate Faehrmann MLC, from the Greens, said the inquiry report missed an opportunity to provide strong recommendations. She said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It was made abundantly clear to the committee that HumeLink, as currently proposed, has no social licence.</para></quote>
<para>The Hon. Emma Hurst, from the Animal Justice Party, noted that the committee had received evidence that the clearing of native forests and bushland required for the HumeLink—which, I might point out, is jut one project—</para>
<para>Debate interrupted.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>78</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tasmania: Cancer Care</title>
          <page.no>78</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the last election the Albanese Labor government made a commitment to support ongoing cancer services at the W.P. Holman Clinic in Launceston. This was a great announcement, and I'm pleased that the Albanese Labor government is providing cancer survivors and their families who are living in northern Tasmania access to specialised support from a consultant nurse after their treatment has ended. Such care is fundamental for the ongoing physical and mental health of patients post cancer treatment. The Albanese government is providing $583,000 to the W.P. Holman Clinic, at the Launceston General Hospital, to develop and implement a three-year pilot project of care for cancer survivors. The nurse consultant will provide specialist clinical advice to patients and their families—something cancer survivors deserve during and after treatment. The support will link patients to GPs and other healthcare professionals as well as local resources, including psychological care and community support.</para>
<para>It must be noted that the W.P. Holman Clinic is one of the state's leading cancer treatment clinics. Follow-up services and clinics for cancer survivors improve patients' emotional health and continuity of care, leading to better long-term health outcomes and self-reported quality of life. The care will be based on the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia's principle of care for survivors, emphasising care that is accessible, equitable and integrated across all service levels.</para>
<para>The Northern Tasmanian Regional Priority Project will aim to provide evidence of these benefits to guide more widespread use of specialised nurse support for cancer survivors, and hopefully we will learn how these types of services can benefit other communities across Australia. The project is one of a number of election commitments the Albanese Labor government is delivering for Northern Tasmania, including a Medicare urgent-clinic at the Launceston Medical Centre, which commenced seeing patients on 31 July this year. All reports have indicated that the clinic is working well and relieving pressure currently on staff and resources at the Launceston General Hospital.</para>
<para>I'd like to acknowledge the Minister for Health, Mark Butler, and all his work in relation to the commitment to the Holman clinic. Cancer patients often experience physical and mental issues that continue after their cancer goes into remission and acute treatment ends. Better support for Australians with cancer, especially those in rural and regional areas, is a high priority for the Albanese Labor government. This funding will help cancer survivors to manage their symptoms and connect with local supports and will ensure that their doctor understands the ongoing challenges they face. As a government we wholeheartedly care about the health of Australians. That's why we created Medicare, and we will only ever improve Medicare and access to health services. This is why the Albanese Labor government is strengthening Medicare and making it easier for Tasmanians to get the health care they need, when and where they need it, right across Tasmania.</para>
<para>This commitment is just another example of the Albanese Labor government caring and delivering for the welfare of Tasmanians. More face-to-face support will make a real difference to treatment delivery, and I'm confident that the head of the Holman clinic and their radiation oncologist, Dr Stan Gauden, and the team will make the most of this initiative. Dr Gauden understands what this funding will mean for cancer services in Tasmania and is rightly delighted to receive this funding, which will help him treat and support patients.</para>
<para>This is what being in government and delivering in government is all about—making a positive difference in the lives of so many families facing cancer diagnosis, providing them with the support they need. It serves our community and it strengthens our community. There wasn't a better night to give this speech than when coming from an ovarian cancer function, where we met in trying to raise awareness about one of the most deadly cancers, unfortunately, that impacts women. It's one that's not sexy to talk about. We don't like to talk about those private parts—the machinery that makes us women—but it's crucial that we talk about these cancers. Whatever type of cancer people have had to endure, it's important that they have the support they need after their treatment ends, and it's just as important to give that support to their families, which benefits our whole community.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gender and Sexual Orientation</title>
          <page.no>79</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHANDLER</name>
    <name.id>264449</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australians were shocked to see our first female prime minister, Julia Gillard, dodging the question 'What is a woman?' when asked recently by a member of the Women's Rights Network Australia at an event—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Please resume your seat, Senator Chandler. Senator Polley, a point of order? What is your point?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Polley</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I think it's appropriate to treat the title of the first female prime minister of this country with respect, so I would remind the senator—through you, Madam Acting Deputy President—to use people's proper title.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Chandler, you're aware of the standing orders.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHANDLER</name>
    <name.id>264449</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I believe I did refer to Prime Minister Julia Gillard, and that is my understanding of what is in accordance with the standing orders.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you. Please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHANDLER</name>
    <name.id>264449</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you. I might start again. Australians were shocked to see our first female prime minister, Julia Gillard, dodging the question 'What is a woman?' when asked recently by a member of the Women's Rights Network Australia at an event about women's advancement. Ms Gillard described this question as a 'gotcha parlour game', but it is no game. The reason people ask leaders this question is that women's single-sex spaces and sports depend on it. A woman is an adult human female. Only those who are happy to let males into women's spaces or who are too scared of abusive activists to answer the question truthfully have any difficulty saying that.</para>
<para>The reason it was particularly pertinent to ask Ms Gillard 'What is a woman?' is that it was the Gillard government in 2013 that removed the definition of 'woman' from the Sex Discrimination Act, and it was that decision which led directly to some of the most perverse policy decisions Australia has ever witnessed. It is the failure of leaders to answer the question 'What is a woman?' that covers up the horrific impacts of this policy failure.</para>
<para>In 2014, an Australian man was found guilty of repeatedly sexually abusing his own six-year-old daughter during access visits. This man, after being released from prison, repeatedly breached his sex offender reporting obligations. He then committed a serious sexual assault on a woman and was convicted yet again, but the second time he was convicted and sentenced the Australian media and the court which sentenced him called him a woman and placed him in a women's prison. Is this disgusting, vile man who raped his own six-year-old daughter a woman, Ms Gillard?</para>
<para>Two weeks ago, Gymnastics Australia was forced to join the National Redress Scheme for institutionalised child sexual abuse. The majority of gymnastics participants in Australia are young girls. Last week, though, under the cover of the referendum date announcement, Gymnastics Australia announced a policy that says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Within Gymnastics Australia and Australian Gymnastics Organisation managed facilities, people have the right to use changing and bathroom facilities which best reflects their gender identity.</para></quote>
<para>This means that males can use women's changerooms where young girls are changing and there is nothing that those girls or their parents can do to stop that. This is happening in an organisation which only a week prior joined the National Redress Scheme for child sexual abuse. It's as if Gymnastics Australia has wilfully chosen to ignore everything that has ever been learnt about safeguarding young girls from opportunistic, predatory male sex abuse in exchange for a few extra reward points from a lobby group which has its logo plastered all over this same Gymnastics Australia policy.</para>
<para>Of course, Gymnastics Australia was following the lead of many Australian sporting organisations, including the Albanese government's top sports bureaucrats, who encourage males identifying as women to participate in women's sport. What's the reason that Gymnastics Australia and all of those other sporting organisations give for allowing males into women's sporting facilities? The Sex Discrimination Act requires them to. And that's because the Gillard government took the definition of 'woman' out of the act, and the Albanese government has refused to consider my save women's sports bill, which would put it back in and protect single-sex sport for women.</para>
<para>So what is a woman, Ms Gillard? What is a woman, Mr Albanese and Premier Daniel Andrews—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Chandler, can I remind you to make your comments to the chair.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHANDLER</name>
    <name.id>264449</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Of course, Madam Acting Deputy President. If they say that it's an adult human female, as Mr Albanese, our Prime Minister, has in the past, then they need to explain why a man who raped his six-year-old daughter was called a woman and placed in a women's prison in Australia. They need to explain to Australian women and girls all over the country why they're no longer entitled to single-sex sport, health services or crisis support.</para>
<para>Most importantly, they need to listen to the calls of women and girls from right across this country who are asking them to act and restore the rights of Australian women and girls to have single-sex sport and spaces.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>80</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RICE</name>
    <name.id>155410</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Poverty is a political choice. It's a choice made every day by the government of this country when they choose to keep the rate of income support below the poverty line, and every day that they let rents skyrocket stratospherically. Make no mistake: they're making a political decision to keep Australians in poverty.</para>
<para>The price hikes we've all felt over the last few years have been dire for people on Centrelink poverty payments. There are levels of widespread deprivation that I've never seen previously in my life. Almost 650,000 households across Australia are in severe housing stress. The government was elected with the simple goal of serving the Australian people. They have clearly failed when millions of people can't put food on the table or heat their homes, and when people receiving JobSeeker and related income support payments are at the highest risk of living in poverty. While Labor is spending $368 billion on the AUKUS submarines and planning to give over $30 billion a year in tax cuts to the wealthiest in our society, people on income support are having to make devastating decisions, like to pay the rent—which means they won't be able to afford to buy food or medicine—or to pay the electricity bill. These are the inevitable consequences of making these heartbreaking decisions. Malnutrition, skipping medication and medical appointments all have knock-on effects. Not having enough money means that people cannot maintain good health, leading to ever-increasing future costs. It's expensive to be poor!</para>
<para>The truly devastating thing is that we know the government has the power to change this. They've done it before! In mid-2020, the overall number of people in poverty fell by 646,000 people, including 245,000 children. These people were receiving COVID support payments that lifted them out of poverty, but they were kicked right back down when these payments were stopped. Labor could address the cost-of-living crisis today by raising the rate of income support and investing in social, public and affordable housing at the level that's required to address the crisis. The full extent of harm being done by Labor's policies is immense. The Labor government is not only letting down millions of Australians but it's also abandoning future generations. There are countless children who should be enjoying their studies and play with their friends but, instead, they worry about their next meal. Activities like sports or music are out of reach. How can they even consider these luxuries when affording food is a daily struggle?</para>
<para>Patricia, who is on JobSeeker, said the following in an ACOSS report on the cost-of-living that was released this week:</para>
<quote><para class="block">There is so much impact it's not possible to list it all. Basically, you are in survival mode 24/7. High stress high anxiety, feelings of embarrassment and shame, failure to provide for your child, I worry a lot about the impact on her. She's a child. It's not fair that she has to ration food and doesn't get to do things kids should get to do.</para></quote>
<para>As the chair of the Community Affairs Committee, I've been listening to heartbreaking stories of this crisis in both the poverty and rental inquiry hearings. Housing and poverty in Australia are at breaking point. An analysis of over 45,000 rental listings in 2023 found that zero per cent of rentals were affordable for a single person on JobSeeker.</para>
<para>It doesn't have to be this way. The Greens' plan to raise all income support payments to $88 a day would alleviate the stress that so many Australians are feeling right now. We're also calling on the government to invest $2½ billion dollars each year directly into public and affordable housing, and to put in place an emergency freeze on rent increases right now. The ACT has had rent control since the nineties and the sky hasn't fallen in. Just last week, Germany announced plans for a three-year rent freeze in acknowledgement of the skyrocketing cost of living. These are not utopian ideas; they are clearly achievable. The only missing piece is ambitious leadership.</para>
<para>Labor, you are in the seat driver's seat. There's no-one else responsible. You can continue down the same road or you can be courageous and put human lives before profit. I call on Labor to seriously invest in public and social housing. Make unlimited rent increases illegal and raise the rate of income support to $88 a day. Future generations will look back at this point in history as a massive failure of this Labor government unless something changes now.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Great Barrier Reef</title>
          <page.no>81</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GREEN</name>
    <name.id>259819</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>September 7 marks National Threatened Species Day, a day that commemorates the death of the last Tasmanian tiger in 1936. Fortunately, our practices towards threatened species have changed dramatically in the last 87 years, but we still have lost more mammals to extinction than any other continent on earth. That's why our government is working towards zero extinctions, endorsed by every state and territory.</para>
<para>As Special Envoy for the Great Barrier Reef, I think it's important for me to use this day to talk about the species that face threat along the reef, and the actions that our government is taking to combat these threats. There is an unexplainable thrill that you get from snorkelling along the Great Barrier Reef and seeing a green sea turtle. It's something that you never get used to, and you chase that feeling over and over again. But these animals aren't just significant for the joy that they bring us or the cultural importance that they hold for First Nations Australians. It's also about the balance that they bring to the reef's delicate ecosystem. They also bring millions of tourists to our shore each year to chase that thrill and to see a green sea turtle for themselves. Unfortunately, far too many species on the Great Barrier Reef are threatened. All six species of turtle that live on the reef are endangered or vulnerable. Dugongs, whales and dolphins are also facing threats. All shark species and sawfish species face threat as well. That's just not acceptable.</para>
<para>Unlike the previous government, the Albanese Labor government does not accept extinctions as inevitable. Sadly, the former government hid the state of the environment report. They failed to act on the Samuel review. They refused to act on climate change and they also refused to act on feral and invasive species. We are taking strong action to protect threatened species. We have invested a record $1.2 billion in protecting the Great Barrier Reef and we are working hard to protect and manage the reef's delicate ecosystem—whether that means culling the crown-of-thorns starfish or drupella snails that wreck the coral environments that so many of these animals call home; ensuring First Nations knowledge is integrated in recovery activities, recognising their 65,000 years of land and sea management; boosting the science happening on the reef by providing $15 million to the Coastal Marine Ecosystem Research Centre in Gladstone to continue their important seagrass research, which goes a long way to ensuring access to seagrass that dugongs and turtles eat. We've also doubled funding to AIMS, headquartered in Townsville, to ensure that the very best marine scientists can be out there on the water looking after our reef. We're working in partnership with the Queensland government so that the reef will be net-free by 2027.</para>
<para>We're taking the necessary steps to keep dugongs, turtles, dolphins, sharks and sawfish safe, and to protect the Great Barrier Reef at the same time. When you protect these animals and the reef, you protect Queensland jobs. We owe these creatures a chance, and if we don't take necessary action we will lose these species that we all love so much. That is a very sad reality. But I am so hopeful and so proud of the work that has been done on the Great Barrier Reef. I know there is still plenty of work for us to do. We are committed to protecting the reef and the animals that live there for generations to come so that we can see green turtles now and into the future.</para>
<para>I thank all of those Queenslanders that love and care for the Great Barrier Reef and for the sea animals that live underneath its waters. We will continue to work together with all those people who love and care for the reef, because we are a government working towards zero extinctions and because we know this is important not just for the health of the reef but for the health of the reef for generations to come.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Defence Force: Disaster Management</title>
          <page.no>81</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COX</name>
    <name.id>296215</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm currently hosting an ADF member from the Royal Australian Air Force in Williamtown, New South Wales. Leading Aircraftwoman Milliscent Cox, or Milli, as we affectionately know her, is with the parliamentary exchange program in 2023 and a proud Wanarruwa woman. I've asked her to write this speech for me about the role of the armed forces in disaster management.</para>
<para>Disaster management involves mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery. The armed forces are to be requisitioned when absolutely necessary. Although it is not the primary role of the ADF to respond to natural disasters, the ADF provides assistance to benefit the nation through its capabilities and resources during and after natural disasters. The mitigation phase begins with conducting a hazard identification and vulnerability analysis. This is a two-step process. The hazard which has the potential to affect the population is identified, and the other step is looking at how people, property and structures will be affected by the disastrous event.</para>
<para>Preparedness is a state of being ready to react promptly and effectively in the event of an emergency. This depends on the analysis of the hazard's severity and vulnerability. Preparedness means that a plan of action exists for an emergency. Having a preparedness plan is a must. A preparedness plan involves identification of possible emergency situations which may occur and then developing a strategy for activities likely to be undertaken and resources used. This plan includes things like identifying the government bodies responsible for responding in an emergency; establishing an emergency operation centre, an EOC, or control room to carry out emergency operations; and also identifying and deploying an officer-in-charge in case of the emergency.</para>
<para>The response is designed to provide emergency assistance to victims of the event and reduce the likelihood of secondary damage. Response activities occur during and immediately following a disaster. The five basic stages of response to an emergency or disaster are (1) notification and warning, (2) immediate public safety, (3) property security, (4) public welfare and (5) restoration. Recovery continues until all systems return to normal or near normal. This is the final phase of the emergency management cycle. Short-term recovery is the restoration of vital services and facilities to a minimum standard of operation and safety. Long-term recovery may include the complete development of damaged areas.</para>
<para>Armed forces in disaster management have an indirect role, with the first response being due to the force being readily available and easiest for the government to deploy immediately and to disaster agencies still being under development. As an insight, some of the requirements when facing a natural disaster include jointness between services and various agencies; and disaster relief bricks, where ADF members are put on capability brick lists in case of a natural disaster occurring and swap out via rotation. Personnel are usually put onto 48 hours notice to move and have had to complete multiple forms and requirements for deployment to a natural disaster or for humanitarian aid.</para>
<para>When asked to write this speech about the way in which the ADF responds to natural disasters and if the ADF takes into account how to approach traditional owners before taking over to manage a situation, Milliscent did not have the answers, as she is not an expert in that situation. However, upon further research, there was an example in a document from the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements, relating to mitigation of fire management. The ADF response in relation to Indigenous land states, 'Management is carried out in line with Healthy Country Plans, using a combination of science and traditional knowledge, with the objectives of looking after Country and culture, limiting late-season wildfires, driving biodiversity conservation, protecting cultural sites and facilitating intergenerational transmission of traditional knowledge.'</para>
<para>Indigenous rangers worked with government agencies and scientists to introduce cultural burning to a large part of Arnhem Land, resulting in a reduction in the frequency and magnitude of large bushfires. Although reducing bushfire risk is not necessarily the primary purpose of Indigenous land management, reduced fuel loads and improved ecosystem resilience have been important benefits of its application. I hope that the above information has given some insight into the ADF response to natural disasters, and I want to thank Milli for her work.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Sex Industry</title>
          <page.no>82</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ANTIC</name>
    <name.id>269375</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Summary Offences (Prostitution Law Reform) Amendment Bill 2023, introduced by my friend and colleague the Hon. Nicola Centofanti MLC in the South Australian state parliament last week, seeks to decriminalise the selling of sex but criminalise the buying of sex and profiting from it through pimping, managing a brothel and so on. This approach is called the Nordic model, and it has reduced the prevalence of prostitution in various countries, including Norway, Sweden, France and Israel. The evidence suggests that it would be instrumental in reducing the demand for prostitution in South Australia and could help women escape the cycle of exploitation, degradation and violence that is prostitution.</para>
<para>Since its implementation in Sweden in 1999, the Nordic model has successfully reduced demand for prostitution and has made it more difficult to profit from it, as opposed to standard decriminalisation laws, which only help the pimps and harm women. The Swedish government has helped many women exit prostitution by providing programs to help them overcome addiction and trauma as well as find suitable housing and meaningful employment. The strength of the Nordic model is that it recognises that prostituted women are overwhelmingly the victims of childhood abuse and may be considered victims deserving of help to escape this lifestyle.</para>
<para>Prostitution is a scourge, yet many on the Left argue for its decriminalisation. Any society that does so finds that the demand for sex-buying increases along with rates of sexual assault, human trafficking, violence, drug addiction, isolation and death, as all of these are inextricably linked to prostitution. Prostitution is dehumanisation. It reduces the entire person to an object to be bought and sold. Prostituted women are often the victims of abuse in childhood and are groomed into this lifestyle feeling that they have no other recourse. One excellent report on the Nordic model's efficacy by Dr Ingeborg Kraus says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">They are not the daughters of well-to-do families. No, women in prostitution are extremely vulnerable: Poverty, experiences of violence, dysfunctional families, marginalization, vulnerability.</para></quote>
<para>These women are not empowered. They're traumatised. They're not taking control of their lives or their bodies. They're dominated by men.</para>
<para>To quote one study which surveyed over 800 prostitutes across nine countries: 'Sixty-three per cent were sexually abused as children, with an average of four perpetrators against each child. As adults in prostitution, 69 per cent of these respondents had been threatened with a weapon, 71 per cent had experienced physical assault, 63 per cent had been raped. Current or past homelessness averaged 75 per cent across countries.' In what other line of work are these experiences typical? Furthermore, women trapped in brothels don't have the option to decline sex buyers. Here's what one former prostitute had to say about the notion that sex work is real work: 'Consent relies on three preconditions: the freedom to choose your sexual partner, the freedom to select the nature of the sexual activity and the freedom to choose the timing. Women in prostitution do not choose their clients, they do not choose their timing, and, in most cases, they hardly have any freedom to determine the nature of the acts performed.'</para>
<para>If we wish to be a society that elevates women, we must dispense with the lie that prostitution is in any way empowering. Would you want a brothel operating in your local area, or megabrothels, common in Germany, opening in the city centre? I suspect there are some in this building that would celebrate this, but the average Australian recoils at the notion. If we promote the dim views of those who support so-called sex work, we shouldn't be surprised when the next generation of boys and girls grow up accepting the objectification of women. I commend my colleague Nicola Centofanti MLC. I support these efforts, and I urge the South Australian parliament to pass this bill.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Government Accountability</title>
          <page.no>83</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Every member of parliament gets the toughest job interview there is. Those people up there—the press, the journalists—put a microscope on our lives. They go through everything we've ever said or done. If you're running for a party, you get your background checked, and you get a police check. When we are campaigning, Australians come and ask us anything. And then, of course, we get the ultimate tick—people vote for us.</para>
<para>But it doesn't work like that for a lot of senior government appointed positions. The Commonwealth Ombudsman, for example, has no criteria for getting the job. For Federal Court judges—Geez, you lawyers are lucky!—you only need five years experience to get the gig. How about that, hey? Then there are senior Public Servants, who can stuff up on a grand scale with no consequences. Remember Kathryn Campbell? I'm sure there are a lot of people who haven't forgotten her. For many roles there is no requirement for specific skills, qualifications or experience to get the job. Kathryn Campbell was just moved sideways into another gig, on big money.</para>
<para>In the last sitting I was approached by Independent MP Allegra Spender. She had been trying to get up a motion—we call it a production of documents—that asked the government to produce documents on departmental and agency officials or appointments. Of course, she got no support from the red team or the blue team in the other place. That often happens up here because the government has the numbers in the House. But it doesn't get that opportunity in the Senate. Ms Spender brought the motion to my office to see if we could get it done through the Senate. We had strong support from the Senate crossbench, and we talked to the blue team for weeks to see if we could get support. We did what they asked, but when it came down to it, they still wouldn't support it. Do you know why? I will tell you why. It's because Liberal and Labor always team up when it comes to protecting themselves from public scrutiny.</para>
<para>Of course, not all documents can be released. Sometimes there are national security reasons or there are ongoing legal cases that the documents may affect. I get that, but I can assure you that they are very few. But handing out jobs to your mates, often without an open tender process or even that job being advertised, is just plain politically wrong. One of the Senate's most powerful and important tools is our ability to order the production of government documents so we can see the bits of paper that are informing the government's decisions.</para>
<para>When the Albanese government were elected they promised greater transparency. As a matter of fact, they sold an election on that, because apparently you guys over here in the opposition had none. Under this government, more than 2,000 requests for answers have been made by senators. How many do you guess remain unanswered? The Centre for Public Integrity found that Senate document production compliance rates—that means how many times the government has handed over documents—has fallen from 92 per cent to 20 per cent. My God! I thought it was bad enough for nine years under the coalition. You guys in the government have dropped 72 per cent in just over 12 months. You're kidding, right? But you sold an election on transparency. You lied you to the Australian people. You lied to them.</para>
<para>Australians, do you know why there are so many requests for the production of documents? It's because the freedom of information system is broken. It is completely broken. Last week, the former freedom of information commissioner told the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee that his attempts to clear the backlog of freedom of information, or FOI, requests were 'deliberately frustrated'. Transparency and accountability are key principles of good government. They are what makes a country great.</para>
<para>Late last year, the Prime Minister said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We have established a National Anti-Corruption Commission because restoring integrity and trust to our politics is essential if we are to maintain the health of our democracy …</para></quote>
<para>Well, isn't that democracy sick. It's great that we have the NACC, but it's not enough and it can't be used as an excuse not to do more. In May, Sophie Scamp MP, another new Independent who campaigned on integrity, brought the 'Ending jobs for mates bill' to the lower house. This legislation laid out a plan for an independent watchdog for all major government appointed positions. I bet you can't guess what happened to that. Come on, Australians, have a shot. It got voted down, of course. It got voted down by both major political parties because they obviously don't believe in transparency.</para>
<para>Australian politics has a long and sorry history of jobs for their mates, and according to a report released last year by the Grattan Institute, it's only getting worse. The government are the team that promised you integrity and transparency at the last election. Have another look at them. Remember when ex-New South Wales Nationals leader John Barilaro was offered a plum half-a-million dollar job as a trade envoy, even though a much more qualified woman had already been tipped for the role? The New South Wales ICAC found this was not technically corrupt; that's correct. That's because it is politically corrupt and they know it, and that is a problem. Giving a mate a job isn't necessarily corrupt but it is politically corrupt. But I don't think it is what Australians expect from their elected representatives. It means we don't get the best decisions for the country. We don't even get close; there's part of your problem.</para>
<para>The Grattan report showed many federal and state government boards, tribunals and agencies are stacked with people who have worked in politics, who have mates in this place—almost always the party that was in government when they got the job. According to the Grattan 2022 report, 21 per cent of government board positions are political appointments. A good recent example is the scrapping of the Administration Appeals Tribunal. Australia's current Attorney-General was so appalled at what he called the previous Liberal government's 'disgraceful exhibition of cronyism' that he scrapped it. The AAT was the independent expert body that reviewed government decisions on everything from child support to immigration status. If you did get appointed to the AAT you would earn anything from $200,000 to half a million bucks a year—nice pay-out. Political appointments to the AAT grew substantially under the Morrison government; they were stacking them in. Then there was a massive spike in appointments just before the 2022 election. That's how it started—jobs for mates. Do you know why that is, Australians? It was because they had a whiff they were going down the gurgler and they wanted to hand out as many gigs to their mates as they possibly could, hoping they would get favours in return when they got booted out. That's how it works up here.</para>
<para>We've been hearing a lot about Qantas over the last few weeks; our much-loved flying kangaroo doesn't seem so loved any more. The coalition are piling on the government to reveal what meetings happened between Qantas and the government in the run up to the decision not to let Qatar Airways have more flights. I would like to take the opportunity to remind the blue team that you voted against the Jacqui Lambie Network motion for the Prime Minister to publish his diary. You have brought this on yourselves. You have wasted a lot of Senate time and will continue to do that, because you didn't vote for transparency.</para>
<para>But again, the red and blue teams, they always vote together when it comes to preventing public scrutiny, but Australians are wising up to this. That's why independents like Ms Spender and Ms Scamps were elected. That's why Senator Tyrrell is sitting in here. I believe they want a parliament that is truly transparent. Maybe we may start getting some respect back from the Australian people if we do the right thing. By the way, that's called leadership. It is called leadership. According to recent polling by the Australia Institute, two out of three Australians think the government should be limited to appointing candidates short-listed by an independent regulator.</para>
<para>I have a warning for the government and the coalition: it is time you picked up your game. The last election saw the primary vote fall for the major parties. I can assure you, Australians are on to you. If you do not pick up your game you will continue to lose out. I know it's been nine years since Palmer United broke the seal and came up here and had the balance of power. I don't apologise for that. But that seal is well and truly broken, and you are getting more independents up here. Whilst I should haven't to lecture you on transparency, because you should be good human beings, that's what we're supposed to be doing—leading by example up here. The Australian people are not seeing this. Quite frankly, it makes the crossbench look bad. The way people think about you people, we're wearing that as well yet we up here are all about transparency. That is really unfair. How about you just do the right thing. Do the right thing for both major parties and start showing some transparency. I can assure you, that will earn a lot more trust of the Australian people. They'd feel more comfortable with the decisions we are making. And while you are giving mates who are not qualified jobs, part of the problem is we have become so comatose at getting anything through this House. That is part of your problem. You don't have qualified people to do the job. I can assure you, if you were running a business, your business would also go down the gurgler. That is the way life is. I'm asking you to get your act together and start leading by example.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>85</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yesterday the government finally shed light on its Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill, or, more aptly, it should be called the 'closing down Australian business' bill. The government has yet to demonstrate exactly how these new radical industrial relations changes will grow the national economy and, critically, address the lagging labour productivity malaise under this government's watch.</para>
<para>We know that productivity has fallen by 4.6 per cent under this government. Everyone in the government has finally jumped on the productivity bandwagon. Even the Prime Minister has managed to say the word, referring to it 11 times at his recent Business Council of Australia dinner. The recent <inline font-style="italic">Intergenerational report</inline> mentioned productivity 370 times. At the same time, it mentioned the 'closing loopholes' bill and how it would potentially grow productivity precisely zero times. In comparison, the government's bill mentions productivity only twice in 284 pages. So where is this government's priority?</para>
<para>In his 16th and final appearance before a parliamentary committee, outgoing Reserve Bank Governor Dr Philip Lowe spoke about the risks of having continued low productivity in the economy. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">If that were to continue it would mean … real wage increases would be very difficult, and it would mean a smaller pie for government to provide the services that the community wants.</para></quote>
<para>He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I think it's the No. 1 medium-term economic issue.</para></quote>
<para>So how does this government respond to the labour productivity crisis? Does it seek guidance from the Productivity Commission on how it can improve labour productivity? Does it say to the business community, 'Come on a journey with us as we seek to enhance productivity and grow the nation's prosperity?' No, it didn't do any of this. Instead, with the economy at a fork in the road, the government thought that right now would be a great time to strengthen trade union involvement in the workplace, that somehow introducing crazy legislation to disrupt the industrial relations framework will grow economic prosperity for all Australians.</para>
<para>The bill that's going to come before the Senate in the next few days will do nothing more than indulge the pious hyperfixation of this government's traditional owners, the trade union movement, to ensure they remain appeased by the Australian Labor Party. Nowhere has empirical suggested that what the industrial framework needs right now is a radical shift in the rights of entry for trade union officials or reintroducing a discredited road safety remuneration tribunal. It's a solution looking for a problem, an analogue approach to a digital world.</para>
<para>The only problem it seeks to fix is a union problem—or, specifically, a lack of union membership. As Stephen Walters observed in the Australian <inline font-style="italic">Financial Review</inline> on 27 August:</para>
<quote><para class="block">A key challenge will be turning around our dismal productivity performance. Productivity is driven by investment and innovation and using the skills of workforces more effectively.</para></quote>
<para>He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The gains usually come at the workplace level and are about working smarter, not harder.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In this context, why is the government rushing workplace changes that will be a drag on productivity and make the fiscal hill even steeper?</para></quote>
<para>I couldn't agree more. Why indeed would they do that? Even the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations admitted in his own media statement on 24 July this year:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Many casuals won't want a permanent job. If you're a student or just working a casual job to make some extra money, this change won't matter to you.</para></quote>
<para>But here we are. This government has been desperately designing a feature in its legislation for a solution which even the minister admits won't affect many casuals.</para>
<para>The government has had a golden opportunity presented to it in this post-pandemic economic environment to seriously address where productivity gains can be found in the industrial relations system and in the broader economy. It could have scrutinised how to drive a more efficient enterprise bargaining system that would facilitate productivity gains or reduce compliance costs for businesses and cut the corporate tax rate, in turn driving better efficiencies and benefiting the economy. It could have reviewed the Fair Work Commission and examined the efficiency of its roles in assisting better productivity or sought to reform the personal income tax rates to give Australian families more money in their back pockets. But it didn't do any of this. Instead, enveloped by blind, puritan ideology, it simply rolled over and acquiesced to the demands of its traditional owners.</para>
<para>Instead, the government decided to take a page out of some of the utopian mythology playbook and go after a purported loophole in the labour hire industry—an industry that trade unions have always disliked simply because they can't derive trade union membership out of it. The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations already admitted last week that the legislation will increase complexity for businesses, while consumers will see price rises because of the proposed changes to the gig economy. This completely ignores the fact that Australians are in a cost-of-living crisis.</para>
<para>Tinkering with the definitions of casual employment, or 'employee-like', will do nothing more than disrupt the industry unnecessarily—an important industry. It will cause uncertainty for employers and employees alike, and will only guarantee that there's a proliferation of regulations, compliance and red tape at the very time we should be reducing—trying to reduce—all these burdens on businesses. The Treasury model has concluded that what the Australian economy needs right at this moment is to have an expansion of trade union delegate powers, or rights of entry. Is that really what Treasury is saying? I don't think so!</para>
<para>The dust hasn't even settled on the government's first tranche of industrial relations changes, noting that one of the caveats of the Secure Jobs, Better Pay bill was that there would be a review of the operation of these changes happen within two years. But here we are, less than 12 months later, without that first bill being tested or its progress analysed, and the government is having a second crack at how it can further disrupt the economy during the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, rampant inflation, soaring interest rates and low productivity growth. As noted by the Productivity Commission in its five-year inquiry:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The workplace relations system has a fundamental role in driving productivity and wages, but needs repair to achieve those outcomes, including a greater emphasis on co-operation between parties.</para></quote>
<para>Absent to date in this bill's formulation is any sense of cooperation or collegiality with key stakeholders.</para>
<para>Unlike this government's Labor predecessors, who knew the value of wisdom and working collegiately with the business community in progressing microeconomic reform, this government seems motivated by creating division. The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations likes to boast of conducting multiple consultations with stakeholders in developing this bill but, let's face it, they're sham consultations. They're consultations for appearance's sake. This is even more apparent when the government says that this is the outcome of the bill they want and that they want to make it work for your business. Then they mock any dissenting voice from business and go about demonising the business sector when it raises legitimate concerns. No doubt, the minister is aiming for his photo to hang on the walls of the trade union hall of fame!</para>
<para>Put simply, this government is attempting a paradigm shift in industrial relations that fundamentally favours trade unions, an industrial base that represents around eight per cent of the Australian workforce in the private sector. Rather than trying to harmonise the workforce and grow productivity linked with sustainable wages growth it seems determined to ensure that the battle lines are drawn for the next wave of radical industrial relations changes. Well, I say to bring it on! That's because we're ready; we are ready to fight this, absolutely—lock, stock and barrel.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice</title>
          <page.no>86</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On 14 October I will be voting yes in the referendum to enshrine a First Nations Voice in our Constitution. I'll be doing that because not only do I think it's the right thing to do but I think it's the decent thing to do—the thoroughly decent thing to do. History is calling all of us, every single Australian, to take up this opportunity—the generous invitation from our First Nations people in the Uluru Statement from the Heart—to walk the path of reconciliation. This Voice is an important step in that.</para>
<para>I would have thought that some things would be above politics. Reconciliation with our First Nations people should be above politics. But, unfortunately, not only has it not been above politics but, in all my time in this place, I have never seen such a naked, shameless attempt to weaponise something this important for political advantage—this do-anything, say-anything approach, no matter the cost, straight out of the conservative playbook. We've seen what happened in the era in the US—Trump's time and in the recent government—being adopted by the LNP. The misinformation campaigns are disgraceful, appealing to our worst emotions—to fear, to division—purely so that the LNP, led by Peter Dutton, can see the Albanese government suffer a defeat, to help their electoral prospects.</para>
<para>I would like to say here tonight that you can always find a reason to oppose things in politics. And yes, we are in Parliament House, and we are politicians. We can always find reasons to oppose things. But that doesn't mean we should, or that it's the right thing to do. And I'll acknowledge some of the confusion, the things that have been raised with me, as a Tasmanian senator, by my electorate and indeed my friends all around the country. There is some truth in some of the criticisms that have been put out there about the Voice—for example, that it's not going to solve all the problems of Aboriginal people in this country. Well, that's true; nobody's ever said it would. But it's a very important step in giving our First Nations communities a voice to advise parliament on the things that matter to them. How can it hurt? How can it possibility do harm to give our First Nations people something as simple as a Voice to Parliament?</para>
<para>Another criticism: Aboriginal people don't support the Voice to Parliament. It's been raised with me directly in recent weeks by Tasmanians. Well, recent polls—two separate polls—have shown that nearly 80 per cent of Aboriginal communities who were surveyed support the Voice to Parliament. So, it is true that some Aboriginal people don't support the Voice, and I respect that. It's also worth pointing out that even if you look at representation issues in those surveys, statistical experts still say, based on their surveys, that the big majority of Aboriginal people support this Voice. I think it's important to note that some Aboriginal people, including in my home state, don't support the Voice, because they don't think it goes far enough. They see it as potentially being tokenistic. They want treaty and they want a sovereign chamber in parliament and a number of other important things. The Greens support that, too. But this is the pathway towards getting that, and that is what we've been campaigning on.</para>
<para>Another criticism is that it's divisive. Well, it's meant to unify us as a country. That was the whole purpose and intent around the Uluru Statement from the Heart, something that took decades and many thousands of Aboriginal people to bring to largely white Australia. The only thing that's been divisive in this debate is the Liberal Party—deliberately so. So, to come out and say that you think supporting the Voice is supporting division—it's actually supporting unity. It's about bringing us together as a nation and walking those steps towards reconciliation, after hundreds of years of colonisation and all the pain and suffering of our First Nations communities.</para>
<para>Another criticism that I have heard raised is that we don't need to have a Voice in the Constitution, because we can do it in legislation. But that's missing the point. It is deeply symbolic for us to put our First Nations communities into the Constitution, a whitefella constitution that dates back nearly a century. This is about acknowledging the wrongs of the past and trying to right them, and it's a very simple and easy concept to understand.</para>
<para>I also want to raise this issue around the Constitution. If it doesn't need to be in the Constitution, why has the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peter Dutton, come out this week and said he wants his own Voice to parliament written into the Constitution—without consulting with Aboriginal people. It doesn't make sense. This is a proposal, this referendum, from the Uluru Statement from the Heart that has taken decades to get to us, and we should accept it.</para>
<para>I know how I will feel on the morning of 15 October if this is not successful, and it is something we need to take seriously, given recent polling. I can't begin to imagine how many Aboriginal people around this country will feel if this referendum fails. It will fail because people weren't able to get themselves informed. Perhaps they were gullible and listened to some of the arguments. Perhaps it's because they are simply racist and they don't want to give Aboriginal people this. It could fail for a number of reasons. It's incumbent on all of us to do everything we can in the weeks to come to convince Australians to do their homework, seek information, talk to their friends and get educated on what the Voice is. We've all got a lot of work to do in the weeks to come.</para>
<para>Where do we go to next if this fails? I can't see any future government bringing back another proposal that would need to go to a referendum—certainly not in my time in politics, and potentially not even in the next generation—if this fails, given the cost and the heartache it is going to put our First Nations communities through, and the division that it has caused in our country. This is our opportunity and we have to grab it.</para>
<para>People can change. I know I've changed. Looking back over my life, as I have walked my journey, I have changed and I believe this country can change. There has never been a more important historic opportunity, if you care about First Nations justice, than 14 October. So please vote yes. Do the right thing and do the decent thing. Let's walk this pathway towards reconciliation and do whatever we can to heal the wounds of history.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aviation Industry</title>
          <page.no>87</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise tonight to speak about a Labor government in crisis. A transport minister who spent 12 months failing to make decisions suddenly makes one in the national interest. It has been more than 125 days since she announced the 90-day infrastructure review, and we haven't seen hide nor hair of that since it was announced. It is even being criticised by the state Labor government in my home state of Victoria. Meanwhile, billions of dollars worth of projects sit waiting for a decision at risk from Labor's razor gang. The infrastructure Australia bill has seemingly disappeared from the Senate Red. Despite being brought into the Senate on 13 June, three months later we're yet to continue that debate as the Labor Party for legislation for us to debate in this chamber this week.</para>
<para>Tonight, I want to talk about one decision that the transport minister, Minister King, has made, which is the decision to block the proposed Qatar Airways from doubling its single daily service to Australia's major airports. Though it has left everyone in the aviation industry, major airlines and even state Labor leaders scratching their heads. The one company not scratching its head as to why is Qantas. After seven weeks of media attention and parliamentary scrutiny, the only airline that seems to have made approaches to government against the proposal is Qantas. Since the decision was made—and it was clarified by the Prime Minister only today that this was on 10 July—every other major airline, former chairs of the ACCC, several state Labor governments, Australian airports, customers, business leaders, economists and major tourism operators have all called on this Labor government to review or reverse this decision.</para>
<para>Australians are suffering in a cost-of-living crisis that is only being exacerbated by the Albanese Labor government. Airfares are currently 50 per cent higher than before the global pandemic just three years ago. International seat capacity is 25 per cent lower than at the same point in time. So at a time when we need to boost our capacity and competition to get Australian travellers on their way and to bring tourists back what does this government do? It rejects the offer of more flights, more seats and cheaper airfares.</para>
<para>Labor sit over there on the government benches today and the minister herself said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I know that Australians are paying too much for their domestic tickets. More international flights from Qatar would not have helped that.</para></quote>
<para>Labor's transport minister admits that airfares are too high, but has said that more competition won't actually drive down prices. I'm sorry, Minister, but it's economics 101. More competition does put downward pressure on prices. This minister might be out of her depth. She's definitely out of touch. Whether it's domestic or international airfares, Australians are paying more. Having a thriving international aviation market with more customer choice, more destinations and more connections to wherever Australians who love to travel want to go has to be a good thing for Australians, their decision-making, our economy and the price of airfares.</para>
<para>Virgin Australia's CEO says that Qatar's additional capacity could have brought down prices on key European routes by up to 40 per cent. That's thousands of dollars in some cases. Virgin is a key partner of Qatar Airways and carries passengers in the domestic market to connect with the latter's international flights.</para>
<para>The coalition wants to see an affordable, reliable and safe aviation industry where our domestic airlines are prosperous and continue to employ tens of thousands of Australians right across our country in well-paying, secure jobs, but what we're seeing at the moment is that things are getting worse, not better. The Qatar proposal was to increase passenger and freight capacity by a further 28 flights per week, doubling their existing capacity, or, in simple terms, having one extra flight per day into Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth. Former ACCC Chairman Rod Sims said, 'If there was a time to allow new entrants in, this is it.'</para>
<para>The Prime Minister and Minister King claim to be protecting the market, but the executives of every major airline, except Qantas, support a review of the decision. Rex Airlines deputy chairman John Sharp has said that the decision should be reversed. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I think it's appropriate if they were to reverse the decision on Qatar flights, noting they had repatriated more Australians stranded overseas during the Covid pandemic than Qantas did.</para></quote>
<para>Australians in need were actually served by the airline applying for one additional flight out of four capital cities a week. I want to pick up on that point because it is important.</para>
<para>Qatar Airways kept flying to Australia, repatriating stranded Australians from right across the world, during the pandemic when our own airlines were shut down or unable to assist. Australia is known to be the country that helps out a mate when they're in strife. In this case Qatar kept Australia's aviation border open, sometimes flying huge planes at great cost with just 20 people on board. What those passengers didn't see was the huge volume of goods—our great exports—right under their feet. WA Labor Premier Roger Cook reflected on that this week when he said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Qatar Airways kept running during COVID, bringing home Western Australians and keeping our freight moving.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">My government has been clear that we want more routes connecting Perth, and the cultural and economic benefits those flights bring.</para></quote>
<para>It's not just the coalition who think this decision needs to be reversed and reviewed; it's actually Labor state premiers who are calling on this government and who are not being heard by their own Prime Minister and their own minister. He understands that in a time of crisis we could have actually needed Qatar. The Labor South Australian government also said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We appreciate Qatar Airways' commitment to South Australia since it started flying to Adelaide in 2016, in particular during Covid when Qatar played a unique and vital role in repatriating South Australians and transporting tonnes of cargo to maintain supply chains for South Australian agriculture exporters.</para></quote>
<para>That was Premier Malinauskas. The Labor Acting Premier of Queensland, Steven Miles, said: 'If it was up to us, they would have been approved.' Don't forget the former Treasurer—and the current Treasurer's mentor and former boss—Wayne Swan, when he said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">An appropriate review where things are, given all these revelations, would be good.</para></quote>
<para>What has stunk about this government's decision is the cover-up. They have been unable to come clean with the real reason they made the decision. They couldn't even come clean until today on the time they made the decision. What was the involvement of the Prime Minister, the Treasurer's office, Minister Catherine King, the trade minister's office and, indeed, the foreign affairs minister's office, given the seven different reasons this government and its ministers have chosen to give the Australian public on why they would not approve Qatar Airways' application. I join Graham Turner, the CEO of Flight Centre, who said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">This is a significant blow. No other part of the tourism and aviation sector can rationalise it.</para></quote>
<para>Minister Catherine King has given seven different excuses, from decarbonising the aviation sector's new fleet to the latest form of words, 'In the national interest.' You heard today in question time, when asked to articulate what the national interest included, one after another of the Labor Party ministers were unable to do that. Well, we've asked you and your colleagues to explain to the Australian people what it means, and so far we've got no answers from this government, which is committed to keep this decision shrouded in secrecy. One can only ask: for what purpose? The government can't shy away from it after today. Today, the coalition—the Liberal and National parties—with the support of the crossbench, not the Greens and not the Labor Party but individual senators from right across this country, have successfully established a select committee into the issue, and we will get the answers.</para>
<para>Prime Minister, I just want to remind you of what you said at the election. You said, when you make a mistake, you are going to confess, you are going to admit to it and you are going to set about correcting the mistake. You said you wouldn't blame anyone else and you'd actually accept responsibility. You said that's what leaders do. I couldn't agree more, Prime Minister. I could not agree more. And it is time for you now to fess up, to take responsibility and to make sure the department gives truthful answers to the Senate inquiry. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living, Minister for Defence, Premier of Queensland</title>
          <page.no>89</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I spend my life travelling around Queensland as a proud LNP senator. Across these travels I speak to and listen to thousands of Queenslanders on the many issues that impact how they live their lives. Whether it be crime, the cost of living, housing, health, escalating insurance premiums or poor transport, Queenslanders are struggling under state Labor and federal Labor governments.</para>
<para>But one experience I had in Brisbane last week actually left me speechless. Peter Dutton and I were speaking to Dan Pappas, who is the owner of a well-known business called Fonzie Abbott, which sells coffee—an important service. In the last two years alone, Dan has faced a raft of challenges. He had to deal with the COVID-19 lockdowns and the fact that they shut down his business. He had to deal with the floods, when his building was waist deep in water. In both events, he pushed on. He kept his business running, he kept his staff employed and he kept up the supply of coffee to people in the Albion area of Brisbane—very, very important. But then Dan was hit with the current cost-of-living crisis, and Dan told Peter and me that, despite the government shutdowns and the floodwaters sweeping through his business, right now is, in fact, the hardest time his business has faced. Just imagine that: you're a small business owner and you were underwater 18 months ago. You've just emerged from COVID, but now is a harder time to run your business because you're dealing with the cost-of-living crisis. It's just insane!</para>
<para>But do Labor care? They don't. Dan explained that at the end of the day, after paying the rising prices for his produce, the higher wages for his staff to make sure they can live their lives—because he's a good boss—the higher insurance premiums and the higher rent, there really wasn't much left over. But Dan's struggle isn't unique. Sadly, across Australia families and small businesses are truly hurting. But the government, this Labor government, has no plan to deal with the cost-of-living crisis—no plan at all. This Labor government has been in power for 16 months and they've actually done absolutely nothing to reduce the cost-of-living pressures. And prices are only going up. But they strut around, saying that net inflation is going down. If you speak to anyone, whether in Fonzie Abbott or at the Sandy Creek pub down the road from me, they'll tell you that everything is going up and that there's a cost-of-living crisis.</para>
<para>If this Labor government spoke to my fellow Queenslanders, they would know that they're doing it really tough right now because they're paying higher rents, they have higher mortgage repayments, higher electricity bills, higher insurance premiums and higher grocery bills. We speak to people across Queensland, and I can promise this: life isn't getting easier, it's only getting harder. Queenslanders think that Queensland and Australia are heading in the wrong direction and that life will continue to get harder and harder while this Labor government harps on about the Voice and does not talk about or deal with the issues that actually impact Australian lives.</para>
<para>Our Deputy Prime Minister really enjoys his travel, doesn't he?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Scarr</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He loves his golf!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He loves his golf—thank you, Senator Scarr. I think that in a previous life he might have been a travel agent, or he could have been a pilot. Or he could have been a hostie, because he loves flying! It's Richard Marles, the Minister for Defence, the minister for frequent-flier points, the minister for golf clubs and the minister for lowering his handicap. Since coming to government, the Deputy Prime Minister has spent $3.6 million on flights on the government jet.</para>
<para>There surely is a place for ministers to use the government jet, and no-one on this side denies that. But for one minister to spend $3.6 million on flights in 16 months is a Lotto win! You could retire on $3.6 million—you could buy a little beach house somewhere, a bit of a shack, and you wouldn't have to worry about life. He has spent that much money on flights in 16 months. That's $225,000 a month on flights. It's $56,000 a week on flights. It's $8,000 a day on flights!</para>
<para>The issue here, for those who are listening at home, is that when the Labor government took office they promised to be the most transparent government ever, but they certainly are not. In fact, they are the least transparent government ever. Every government since the 1960s has released details of government flights. For 50 or 60 years governments of all persuasions have released details of government flights, but not this government and not this defence minister. That's because he has something to hide, doesn't he? Spending $3.6 million on flights is a lot of money, but he was also asked yesterday about how many times he had taken his golf clubs with him. You'd think it was a pretty simple question, 'How many times have you taken your golf clubs with you?' He didn't answer the question. That leads me to think that he has taken the golf clubs with him. He has taken his golf clubs with him on international flights, courtesy of the taxpayer, and he has taken his golf clubs domestically, courtesy of the taxpayer. What we have here is someone who is becoming the Donald Trump of Australian politics. Donald Trump loves his golf; he actually owns golf courses. The Deputy Prime Minister is so focused on golf. Just imagine this. This is the Minister for Defence, and he is so focused on golf and taking his golf clubs with him when he flies internationally and around Australia. If he wants to do that, the people at Fonzie Abbott and the people at the Sandy Creek Pub can judge him on that.</para>
<para>But the issue here is that this Labor government will not tell us basic information about these flights. Who was on them? Where did they go? This is pretty basic stuff. Remember: this isn't the Labor Party's money. This isn't the Deputy Prime Minister's money—the Deputy Prime Minister who is treating Royal Australian Air Force planes as his own private Uber. We've got Air Force Marles here at the moment. We've got VIP flights, which are the Uber flights that the Deputy Prime Minister is using, but he doesn't pay for them. He hasn't paid for the 700 hours of flights. You can fly around the word 20 or 30 times with the number of hours that the Deputy Prime Minister, in only 16 months, has spent in the air. This is taxpayers' money. The position of the Liberal National Party is very clear: we want to know how the taxpayers' money is being spent. We now have a prime minister who has gone overseas—Anthony Albanese is overseas, good on him—and Richard Marles is Acting Prime Minister. We've got an Acting Prime Minister who won't tell the Australian people the truth about how he has spent $3.6 million of taxpayer money. So I say to the Deputy Prime Minister: start telling the truth, get off the golf course and get back to work.</para>
<para>Talking about getting back to work, I think it would be nice if the Labor Premier of Queensland got back to work. We have a Labor premier in Queensland who has spent more time on holidays than she has sat in the Queensland parliament this year. I want those at home to work this out. The Premier of Queensland has spent more time on holidays than she has in parliament. We have a crime crisis. We have a health crisis. We have a cost-of-living crisis. Our infrastructure is falling apart. But we have a part-time premier who is a full-time attendee at opening nights, on the red carpet and at going overseas. I say to Premier Palaszczuk and state Labor: get on with the job of looking after Queenslanders and stop playing games.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability</title>
          <page.no>90</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEELE-JOHN</name>
    <name.id>250156</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I speak tonight in the context of the disability royal commission. The Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability is scheduled to make its final report public in the coming weeks. Shellay Ward, Levai Bonnar, Hayley Dea Bell, Isabella Leiper, Julian, Liam Milne and his younger brother, Craig Sullivan, Brandon Le Serve, Jack Sullivan, Lara Madigan, Sarah Hammoud, Christopher O'Brien, Neil Summerell, Rebecca Lazarus, Jamie Vincent Johnson, Carney Schultz, Shona Hookey, Stephen Ind, Stuart Lambert, Darren Kingma, Brett Ponting, David Veech, Miriam Merten, Amanda Gilbert, Leah Elizabeth Floyd, Julie Jacobson, Sandra Deacon, Janice and Robyn Frescura, Shirley Thompson, Janet Mackozdi and Julie Betty Kuhn—in one of my first speeches in the Senate, I read those names into the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>. They are some of the names of disabled people who died in the years leading up to the commencement of the disability royal commission. Most of these people were aged between seven and 20 years old when they died. They died in truly horrific circumstances, most in government support facilities or under the care of registered support workers.</para>
<para>Today I add to that list even more names of disabled people who have died as a result of violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect since the commission's formation in 2019. Josh, aged 24, died after an incident at the Perth underground station mere metres away from my electorate office; Alex Raichman died aged 11; Liam Danher died aged 23; Tim Rubenach died aged 32—both Liam and Tim died while waiting for vital NDIS supports that could have prevented their deaths—and Ann Marie Smith died aged 54.</para>
<para>The Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability was the result of years and years of community pressure. We were determined to have the injustices that our community faces acknowledged by the people in this place. The executive government asked us to tell our experiences—to share some of our darkest days—just one more time. After the last four years of evidence and investigation, the commission has collected stories and shed much-needed light on the confronting reality of what it can mean to be a disabled person in this country. Now, as we prepare for the commission to come to a close and for the reports and recommendations of that commission to be handed down, I call upon the government to commit now to having a clear action plan with real resourcing to ensure that the recommendations that will end once and for all the violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation of disabled people are fully enacted. Disabled people deserve nothing less.</para>
<para>The disability community have given so much to this commission, pouring our hearts and souls out and giving the weight of our lived experience and professional expertise in submissions detailing some of the most harrowing moments of our lives. We have entrusted decision-makers with information that you need to dismantle the systems that were designed to support us and too often left us instead harmed. We have entrusted decision-makers to hold perpetrators to account. As a community, we have done our part. Now it is time for you to do yours.</para>
<para>Alongside the community, I am calling for three fundamental actions that the government must take to honour the commitment disabled people have brought to this process. Firstly, it must be acknowledged that the commission has illuminated that ableism is everywhere. During the last four years, people have had a place to go to share their experiences and a body that has had the power to investigate and refer to police. There is an urgent need for an ongoing reporting and accountability mechanism. As a community, we need this to exist across various settings, institutions, service providers and even corporate entities like airlines. All must be held to account. For that to happen, there must be a dedicated mechanism to which disabled people can report their experiences of ableism beyond the end of this commission.</para>
<para>Perpetrators have gotten away with far too much for too long. There have been far too many broken promises in relation to them being held to account and brought to justice. We must have the ability to hold perpetrators to account, and that accountability must begin at the highest levels of government. There must be established a dedicated disability minister, supported by a specialised department solely focused on disability issues. This will ensure that disabled concerns are given the attention they deserve and that they cannot be—that our lives and needs can never again be—handballed between departments endlessly. We cannot allow these recommendations to be forgotten in the corridors of power. Action is the only response acceptable to the profound injustices uncovered by the commission. Tears will not cut it.</para>
<para>Currently, many in the support systems disabled people rely on and many that rely on these support systems know the reality that they are not equitable or intersectional in the support that they provide. The systems that we rely on do not support us. An example is the disability support pension, which of course must be raised. The current level of the DSP is inadequate and does not reflect the financial realities of disabled individuals or the financial realities of any person living through a cost-of-living and housing crisis. Additionally, DSP partner laws and obligations are archaic. They drive people below the poverty line. They trap them within abusive relationships. For as long as they remain in place, disabled people will not have marriage equality in this country.</para>
<para>The NDIS—a vital life support system, a lifeline for so many disabled people—has changed the lives of so many disabled people, and yet the net result has been a worse outcome for many in our community. We have seen the agency and those who run it take measures over the last two years to deliberately exclude people with psychosocial disability from the scheme. If the NDIS is not the support system for those disabled people, what is?</para>
<para>In the spirit of collective liberation, it is also of the utmost importance that we recognise the role that privilege plays in oppressing the rights of disabled people, who continue to be overlooked, including those overlooked by the commission itself: those who have not been empowered to share their stories or to advocate for themselves given they are subject to multiple layers of oppression and discrimination. In order to address the root causes of violence, abuse and exploitation, no body or mind can be left behind. As we build new systems and transform and dismantle old systems, all must be brought with us in this transformation.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice</title>
          <page.no>92</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to pay tribute to a young Queenslander who I met recently, who is finishing grade 12 and who has just turned 18. Now, I would like to be able to state the young Queenslander's name. I would like to state the school which the young Queenslander attends, but I'm not going to do so, because I don't want to cause issues or problems for that young Queenslander. Let me tell you why. This young Queenslander attends a high school—a very well-known high school in my home state of Queensland—and recently with fellow year 12 students at his high school attended a seminar put on by the high school. The seminar was for all year 12 students of voting age, who will have the opportunity to vote in the forthcoming referendum.</para>
<para>I can remember that I spoke in my first speech in this place about some of the teachers who had a material impact on the development of my critical thinking capacities: my history teacher, Bruce Prasser; an English teacher, Ted Ryan; and other teachers. But in all those cases in my experience at my high school, never—not a single time—did a teacher seek to impose their views with respect to any matter regarding political beliefs or other matters which belong in the personal domain. On no occasion did any of those teachers seek to impose their views on me as a student. What they sought to do was to teach me critical thinking and provide motivation, encouragement and intellectual stimulation so I would go away, inquire into matters and form my own view. That's what they sought to do.</para>
<para>The experience of this year 12 student who I spoke to recently was very different in the context of this referendum. Along with other students of voting age, he attended a seminar, provided by their high school, which was essentially a seminar as to why they should vote yes in the forthcoming referendum. They weren't given the alternative viewpoint. They were given one viewpoint and one message. For the first time, this young Queenslander is going to vote, and his high school, of all places—his place of education—called him into a seminar and then sought to pressure him into voting yes in the forthcoming referendum. They didn't say to this year 12 student, 'For the first time in your life, you're going to have the opportunity to exercise your democratic right, as someone who's just turned 18 in this country, and in the course of exercising that democratic right you should appreciate that there will be good people on both sides of the debate, with differing points of view and differing perspectives, and that should be celebrated.' No, that wasn't the message. They didn't say to that young Queenslander who I met, 'Because you have a right to vote, you have a concomitant obligation to inquire into the relevant questions and to do some research and consider and weigh the arguments both for and against voting yes in the referendum.' No, they didn't do that. They didn't say to this young Queenslander, 'In the course of considering and debating issues such as those which are coming before the referendum, the exercise of that process in itself means that, even if you're not convinced by those on the other side of the debate, you obtain a deeper understanding with respect to your own arguments.' They didn't say that to this young year 12 student in my home state of Queensland. What they did was drag him and his fellow students into a seminar and dictate to him how he should vote. It is absolutely disgraceful that our educational institutions should be doing this to first-time voters.</para>
<para>When I heard this story I was somewhat concerned. What would be the impact of this? Let me tell you what the impact was, Mr Acting Deputy President McGrath. As a Queenslander, you will smile wryly when I tell you this. In the great anti-authoritarian Queensland tradition, the fact these young students were dragged into a seminar and told they should vote yes in the constitutional referendum has had entirely the opposite impact. He's going to vote no, having considered the issues, and the vast majority of his fellow students are going to vote no, because they don't like to be dictated to as to how they should exercise their democratic vote. It was totally counterproductive on the part of that education institution, and we are seeing this across the community.</para>
<para>I had another report of a high-performing university student studying law, my own profession. The class were asked to put assignments in with respect to the forthcoming constitutional referendum. This university student chose what I think all of us would admit to be, in the context of a university education, the more courageous decision, which was to write an essay from a legal point of view putting the 'no' arguments. When they got their assignment back, there was a comment put on that assignment which stated in no uncertain terms that the assessor of that assignment brought their own prejudice to bear in assessing the quality of the university assignment, and this high-performing student was given a bare pass. This was in, of all things, my profession, the legal profession, where we have an absolute tradition of ensuring that every single person who needs legal representation is represented, no matter how unpopular the cause. We have a tradition of mobilising the best arguments in order to support a view, a perspective, yet at a university a future lawyer is given this awful message that you have to give the conformist view, the view that conforms with the views of your teachers and lecturers and the institution—the institutional view must prevail. It's an awful message.</para>
<para>So I say to Queenslanders: if you have an example of this over the next six weeks, I want to hear about it, and I'm sure my good friend Senator James McGrath wants to hear about it too. We will call it out in this place because it is grossly inappropriate that young people getting their education should be subject to this indoctrination and fed this propaganda. Our high schools and universities should be teaching young people how to think, not what to think. That should apply in the context of this referendum and in every other context.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19</title>
          <page.no>93</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, tonight, on the fourth anniversary of COVID-19, I ask the Senate to consider the latest scientific discoveries. I'll then make a request. The latest variant of COVID-19, called pirola, is now dominating the news cycle and leading to calls for a return of masks, lockdowns and injections, despite there being only 12 cases in five countries. Dr Byram Bridle, a viral immunologist who specialises in vaccines, has published work relevant to pirola, which I will now summarise here.</para>
<para>If pirola were a dangerous virus, it would be easily detected because the increase in suffering and death would prompt testing. With only 12 cases, pirola is not serious. Pirola contains more than 30 mutations on the spike protein, which is what helps the virus enter cells and cause an infection. An accumulation of mutations in the spike protein is exactly the expected result from the poor design of these COVID injections that we've been inflicted with; specifically, the targeting of a single spike protein. The approach of targeting a single spike protein encourages the virus to mutate until it finds a variant the shot does not protect against. In this case, vaccination causes mutation. Natural immunity, though, targets multiple components of COVID-19. A person with natural immunity will have both antibodies and T cells that can kill COVID-19 by virtue of recognising things other than the spike protein, so it will be more difficult for new variants to completely evade natural immunity. He continues that Australians with only vaccine induced immunity will be more susceptible to getting infected. That means no immunity. And he says—listen to this quote—they 'will be prone to more severe illness than people with natural immunity'.</para>
<para>In our haste to force vaccination on every Australian we have weakened the immune systems of our nation and delivered weakened bodies into the hands of the medical establishment responsible for this crime in the first place. In the months ahead, as the medical establishment and their media mouthpieces scare the Australian public into more injections, masks and other manifestations of Soviet control, remember this: pirola is likely less dangerous than any other strain, especially for those with natural immunity. So far it looks like pirola might cause a typical wave of the common cold. It might spread to a lot of people, like most cold-causing viruses do, and for most it will cause mild, if any, disease. Of course, follow medical advice if you're immunocompromised or unwell. Thank you, Dr Byram Bridle.</para>
<para>Next, David Dowdy, a professor of epidemiology at the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, commented:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We don't want to be sounding alarm bells over a variant that is just as likely to die out as it is to become the next big thing. If we did that for every single variant we'd be sounding alarm bells every single day.</para></quote>
<para>The professor seems to be missing the point that fear is the point, and from fear comes control. If you want to slow the emergence of new variants, like pirola, stop the shots—stop the COVID-19 injections.</para>
<para>While we're at it, stop manufacturing viruses like COVID-19 in laboratories. Seriously, what else in these labs may escape one day? Surely a royal commission would have to ask that question. It's now been four years since COVID-19 was discovered in the wild, when three junior researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology presented to a hospital in Wuhan with flu-like symptoms. It's been four years since 14 September 2019, the date Italian medical staff detected what became known as COVID-19. In the years since, the world has gone insane, with lockdowns; business closures and job losses; civil rights violations; coerced vaccination, contrary to the Geneva convention and inhuman; and military on the streets acting on instructions from the Medical Countermeasures Consortium, a military-health joint venture that oversaw the development of COVID-19 as a medical countermeasure, along with the antidote—sorry, the vaccine—produced in case the virus ever occurred in the wild. That's what medical countermeasures are. Was this unholy military-health alliance responsible for suppressing inquiry into the source of COVID-19 lest it call into the question the wisdom of gain-of-function research? That's an important question.</para>
<para>The same research was conducted with funding from the US government and supported across USA vassal states, including ours, Australia. I've previously spoken about our CSIRO's involvement in gain-of-function research. Injectables were produced with the claim they could do something a real vaccine can't do: stop the spread. In the decade before COVID, mRNA vaccines were tested and rejected, repeatedly, for product failure and adverse health outcomes. Then along came a lab engineered virus and those failures were swept aside in what almost felt like a Palm Sunday Hosanna reception. The injections were said to be our salvation, rescuing us from restrictions that governments imposed in order to sell the damn injections—a masterful media manipulation worthy of a royal commission inquiry into the approval and response process that has proven deadly.</para>
<para>Meanwhile, the medical establishment has ignored the obvious signs of injection-induced injury and death. Our medical establishment has responded to each alarming new study and damning data with a routine the internet has dubbed 'Dr Baffled'. The World Health Organization is currently investigating an unusual rise in severe myocarditis cases amongst newborns and infants in the United Kingdom, one of which resulted in the death of the infant. 'Dr Baffled' doesn't know what's behind the rise in paediatric myocarditis. He's baffled! Yet, somehow, he does know for sure that it isn't the injections, despite myocarditis being a known COVID injection side effect.</para>
<para>In a peer reviewed study published in the Cureus Journal of Medical Science on 20 July, researchers found a correlation between neonatal vaccine doses and infant mortality rates in developed countries. According to data collected from 2019 to 2021, there's a positive correlation between mortality rates and the number of vaccinations administered to neonates aged from birth to five years. In short: higher vaccine rates were linked with higher infant mortality rates. 'Dr Baffled' refuses to even look at this and so many other similar findings. As a result, ' Dr Baffled' remains baffled as to why these children are not thriving on a diet of injected chemicals and genetic material.</para>
<para>In groundbreaking research presented last month, statistician and Luzern University professor Dr Konstantin Beck said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… miscarriages and stillbirth rates in 2022 corresponded directly to COVID-19 vaccination among pregnant women in Switzerland nine months earlier.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And, he said, vaccine makers and public health officials either knew or could have known this information at the time, if they cared to look.</para></quote>
<para>If they looked, of course, they couldn't continue to be baffled about the findings. That's why they're baffled: they won't look.</para>
<para>A study of the 500 largest school districts in the USA found that children forced to wear masks in school are on average three times more likely to get sick than those in districts without a mask mandate. Masks amplify diseases found in the wild. A random sample of used children's masks found pneumonia, meningitis, diphtheria, sepsis and staphylococcus in amplified levels. Schools without masks recorded higher COVID infection rates early in the year, then cases fell away quickly, proving that healthy children only need natural immunity. It's the best immunity there is. 'Dr Baffled' has no comment on the data but assures everyone that masks are safe, contrary to the evidence.</para>
<para>A new paper from the University of Melbourne published in the journal Frontiers in Immunology made the stunning conclusion that the Pfizer vaccine, when given to children, reduces their immune system's response to other viruses and bacteria, like the bacteria I just mentioned that were found on children's masks. It reduces children's health. New information last month shows that Novavax, touted as a protein-only vaccine, free of genetic material, did in fact contain genetic material and a transfectant, saponin, meaning Novavax is a gene-therapy product. Whoops! Another massive scandal the public have not yet been told about. If the media does not speak further on this, I will. The TGA never pulled apart the injectables in their own labs. The TGA relied on what the manufacturers told them was in it so they could maintain plausible deniability of what was in them. A royal commission should short out Professor Baffled and the TGA expert committees on what seems to be a textbook case of malfeasance in office.</para>
<para>Undeterred, the TGA is doubling down. They just announced the removal of pack inserts for all injected products. These inserts used to inform doctors of known side effects and adverse drug interactions. For that reason, printed inserts are a legal requirement, saving the doctor from a web search most would haven't time to conduct. Typically, when the TGA sees a problem, it hides the problem. Without this information, Dr Baffled will be even more baffled as to why patients keep dying suddenly. On the issue of excess deaths, the latest Australia Bureau of Statistics data shows Australian excess mortality remains at 27 per cent—40,000 Australians are dead this year who should not be dead and nobody in this government gives a damn. No one gives a stuff. One Nation calls on the government to call a royal commission into COVID now and, until that inquiry happens, stop the COVID shots now.</para>
<para>Senate adjourned at 21:16</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
</hansard>