DOCUMENTS

2023-09-11 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Monday, 11 September 2023

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

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 10:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 1 10:01 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland At the request of Senator Gallagher, I move: That the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 and the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023 may be taken together for their remaining stages. 10:02 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I rise to speak on the motion that Senator Gallagher has just put before the chamber concerning debate over the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 and the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023. I say at the outset that, despite our grave reservations about the government's approach to scrutiny of the Family Law Amendment Bill, we will not oppose the motion. We are happy for the debate on the two bills to run together. Each of these bills is important in its own way, but they address common concerns in our family law system. I say that because family law in Australia is governed by more than just the Family Law Act. In fact, it interacts with child protection systems; laws dealing with domestic and family violence, including criminal laws and apprehended violence order regimes; arrangements that govern property, especially superannuation; and social services, including child support and benefits. Again, in the context of the motion and the bringing together of two bills, these are incredibly important bills. When you look at the family law system as a whole, it is also governed by intergovernmental agreements and referrals of constitutional power. It is also affected by rules about jurisdiction and appeal pathways, the architecture of our court system and the procedural and administrative arrangements that impact on how quickly matters progress through our courts. We recognise, in addressing the motion, that it is a complex system with a number of parts that are interrelated, and dealing with one part of the system has downstream consequences on the other parts. Turning to the reasons for dealing with the two bills together, as put forward by the motion, the point of running through an outline of different parts of the family law system is to explain why the coalition will not oppose the motion and we do not mind the fact that the two bills will ultimately be dealt with together. The reason that you deal with them together is that, as I said, you do recognise the complexity and you try and deal with the changes as a whole. We hope that this will help to avoid a piecemeal and ad hoc debate about a system that is already too complex., but it is appropriate to start by reflecting on the broad reach of the family law system for other reasons too. It is appropriate because the complexity of the family law system is exactly the issue that is addressed by the information-sharing bill. That is the subject of this motion, and it is appropriate because the Family Law Amendment Bill will affect Australian families in myriad different ways. In discussing the motion about how we debate the bills, I want to reflect on the cavalier approach the government has adopted in bringing this bill before the chamber. The Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill is the culmination of work that started under the former coalition government to ensure that family courts have the information they need when making orders in parenting matters. The coalition has a very strong record when it comes to improving the interaction between child protection and family law systems. In fact, if you look to the 2019-20 budget, we provided funding to co-locate state and territory family safety officials in family law courts. This was intended to improve information-sharing between the family law, family violence and child protection systems. Indeed, after the Australian Law Reform Commission handed down its report, Family law for the future: an inquiry into the family law system (ALRC report 135), the coalition agreed to implement a national information-sharing framework to make sure decision-makers had the right information at the right time. Again, whilst we are not opposed to these two bills being dealt with together—they go to the complexity of the family law system—the national information-sharing framework that came out of the Australian Law Reform Commission report was intended to guide the sharing of information about the safety, welfare and wellbeing of families and children between the family law, family violence and child protection systems. That work then progressed in partnership with all other jurisdictions through the Standing Council of Attorneys-General and its successor bodies. In fact, that work, undertaken in November 2021 by the former coalition government, led to the endorsement by all jurisdictions of the new framework, and it was called the National Strategic Framework for Information Sharing between the Family Law and Family Violence and Child Protection Systems. It had a specific, simple objective: …to promote the safety and wellbeing of adults and children affected by family violence, child abuse and neglect, and support informed and appropriate decision-making in circumstances where there is, or may be, a risk of family violence, child abuse or neglect. In fact, one of the features of the national framework was a shift away from subpoenas issued by the parties to a family law dispute. As we all know, too often in matters of family law, the way that parties put relevant information in front of the court was by issuing a subpoena, and these could be costly, unpredictable and contested. In terms of this motion, when you actually bring the two bills together, the information-sharing bill directly impacts the Family Law Amendment Bill that we will also be debating if this motion is in fact agreed to by the Senate. As I said, one of the issues that is dealt with in this bill, but which is reflective upon the motion for the other bill, is that, too often in family law matters, the way that parties put relevant information in front of the court was by issuing a subpoena, which can be costly, unpredictable and contested. Under the information sharing-framework, the coalition decided to move instead towards targeted requests for information—orders that were initiated by the courts and not the parties to the dispute, rather than relying on those parties to issue subpoenas. The framework was intended to empower the courts. The idea was to allow them to access family safety information. This is actually a good thing in the context of this bill, but it also then has impacts in relation to the motion put forward by Senator Gallagher that we actually now deal with these two bills together. We had actually looked at facilitating early and streamlined information sharing. We did propose a new form of order referred to as a short form order. This would allow a court to ascertain two things from a state or territory agency that holds information: whether the agency holds information that would help inform the court's decision-making and a general indication about the nature or extent of the records held, any known risks and the extent of the agency's involvement. In terms of the motion, the government have requested that we consider debating the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill in conjunction with the Family Law Amendment Bill. I am very pleased that the considerations that are reflected in this bill are the considerations that the former coalition government had taken on board and indeed would have pursued had we been in government. We would have pursued an information-sharing bill, and that's on the basis that the bill itself will actually achieve four things. Those four things in the context of this debate are important in relation to the discussion that will then be had over the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023. The information-sharing bill will ultimately impact upon decisions made in terms of the Family Court system itself, and that is what the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 will deal with. It introduces the two types of information-sharing orders. As I said, it allows the courts to issue the short form order I spoke about earlier, and that is the order for particulars. It also allows the courts to issue orders to actually produce the relevant documents or information. This information-sharing bill, which does then impact on the Family Law Amendment Bill, firstly, replaces the existing more limited information-sharing provisions that are currently in the Family Law Act. Secondly, it allows the family law courts to obtain a broader range of information than is possible under existing information-sharing arrangements. This recognises that family violence and child abuse and neglect are complex, can take a number of different forms and can impact children even if not directed at them. It was always our belief that the Family Court should not be unduly limited by the information they take into account when making parenting orders. Thirdly, the bill expressly outlines legal exclusions to information-sharing, such as documents that are privileged or information that would endanger a person if disclosed. Fourthly, it restricts the issuing of subpoenas without the leave of the court. I want to make one observation though. As I said, the opposition will support the motion that has been put forward We are happy to have both bills dealt with together, albeit on the basis that the information-sharing bill really implements the work that the coalition had already undertaken and we would have proceeded with had we been in government. Also the motion acknowledges the complexity of the family law system itself. In terms of the government's approach to family law generally, it has been rather arrogant and cavalier in terms of the Family Law Amendment Bill itself. That bill, which will shortly be joined by the information-sharing bill, epitomises exactly the type of complexity I have referred to. It is far-reaching. It will directly impact Australian families in so many ways. It deals with fundamental principles that the courts apply when making parenting orders; issues about family and domestic violence; procedural rules about family law matters and the enforcement of orders; international child abduction disputes, which are fundamentally affected by rules around jurisdiction and international law; regulatory standards for family report writers; cultural issues affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children; the way the family law courts operate across state jurisdictional boundaries; and the structure of the family courts themselves, which the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill goes directly to. So again we see the complexity of family law. The fact that the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill is a bill that we as a coalition would have pursued in government again goes to why the coalition is ultimately going to support this motion. We are, then, glad that these bills will be debated together, given the impact that both bills will ultimately have on the family court system itself. It is appropriate, but I have to say it is unfortunate that Labor's arrogance and, in particular, disregard for families and for the Senate committee process in coming to this debate was such that I don't believe adequate integrity was given to, in particular, the Family Law Amendment Bill. But, as I said, because of the complexity of the system and the fact that the coalition itself would have pursued the information bill, we are happy to support the motion that has been put forward before the Senate. 10:16 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I thank Senator Cash for that contribution. The government moved this motion that the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 and the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023 be taken together for the convenience of the Senate. Passage of this motion means that there will be only one second reading debate and committee stage, rather than two consecutive debates on bills dealing with the same topic area. Whilst the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 has been available to the Senate for some time, the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 was subject to a Senate committee inquiry, and the government did not consider it desirable for one bill to proceed ahead of the other. The bills being taken together does not prevent any senator from asking for the two bills to be voted on separately at any stage, and there is an expectation that this might occur. If the motion is not successful, the bills will be debated one after the other in the order that they are listed on the red and in the Notice Paper. 10:17 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I rise to provide support to my colleague Senator Cash in relation to the comments that she made on the two bills. These are very important matters. I sat on the Senator Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, as did Senator Waters, in the inquiry into the provisions of the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023. I also participated in the inquiry into the provisions of the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023. I think the government and, indeed, crossbenchers and everyone in this chamber should reflect upon whether or not there is a pathway by which some reasonable amendments can be made to these bills, particularly the Family Law Amendment Bill. I think there is a pathway where the bill could be enhanced and meet the objectives of the government, and probably everyone in this chamber, in making sure that the best interests and safety of the child are paramount when people are going through the separation processes. This would also send a message to the community. I went back and had a look at the tremendous report that was prepared on a bipartisan basis by Kay Hull AO when she was in the other place. It was absolutely inspirational to see members across all chambers and all parties come together and propose recommendations that were reflected in the Family Law Act on a unanimous basis, which I think considerably enhanced the legislation and, perhaps most importantly, provided guideposts or signposts to people in the community with respect to our underlying intention as a legislature. What concerns me at the moment in relation to this bill is that there are so many provisions being taken out of this bill, especially in relation to principles and objectives—and I'll be talking about that later—that I think it's sending the wrong message to people in the community. Having read the explanatory memorandum for the Family Law Amendment Bill, I think everyone is largely on the same page. But the drafting of the amendment bill doesn't get there; it doesn't achieve that. And I think it is going to cause disquiet in the community around the messages that are being given through the drafting, which I suspect are not intended by the government. To those listening to this debate, let me give you just one example. One of the best-interests considerations in terms of the making of parenting orders et cetera is in relation to 'the benefit to the child of being able to have a relationship with the child's parents'. That's non-controversial. Obviously there are safety considerations that need to be considered and there are recommendations that the committee made with respect to the need to consider family violence orders in the past, abuse and neglect in the past, and absolutely those things need to be considered. But many stakeholders raised the issue about 'the benefit to child of being able to have a relationship with the child's parents', as the government proposes. The government has removed the word 'meaningful' from before the word 'relationship'. Why? Why remove that word? So many stakeholders, with the Law Council of Australia at the head of the queue—the experts—and many of the family law practitioners experts are saying, do not remove the word 'meaningful' before 'relationship', because the term 'meaningful relationship' has been the subject of many cases and much deliberation. Practitioners know what it means. And it's not just about practitioners. Only three per cent of matters dealing with parenting orders actually end up in the court itself; 97 per cent of these matters are resolved by parents and families as they're dealing with the separation issues. We should be doing everything we can in this place to make it easier, not harder, for families to resolve these issues without going through the court process and incurring debilitating legal expenses. We should be making that easier. In order for us to that, there need to be some signposts, some guidance contained in the amending bill with respect to what is intended. This is a perfect example. Why not say 'the benefit to the child of being able to have a meaningful relationship with the child's parents', as opposed to just saying 'being able to have a relationship'? Why take out that word 'meaningful'? What message are you intending? I don't think you're intending to give any message to people by removing that word. But I think it's an example of where the drafting needs further consideration, when reasonable concerns are raised, not just by Senator Scarr but also by the Law Council of Australia and law practitioners associations across the country, from Western Australia to the Hunter Valley to Queensland, saying, please retain that word 'meaningful'. It is not going to impede the government's reform process with respect to the legislation. I agree with the basis of the reform process. The Family Law Act, in terms of parenting orders, is too complicated. It is acting as a hindrance in relation to dealing with matters, especially on an interim basis. But why change a phrase from 'meaningful relationship' with both parents to just 'relationship'? So I ask, especially those sitting on the other side of the chamber, to consider these issues. I compliment the Attorney-General's Department on the speed with which they turned around questions on notice et cetera in relation to the matters. We worked very diligently to a very tight timetable. The hearing was on a Friday and then the report was tabled two weeks later—a very tight timetable dealing with very complicated issues. I genuinely believe there is a real opportunity to enhance the drafting of this legislation and get a better result and send the right message to Australian families all over this country. So I really do commend Senator Cash for her comments and I exhort all of us in this chamber to reflect on how we can improve this legislation, because it's so important. There is nothing more important than dealing with these sorts of issues. Question agreed to. BILLS 4 BILLS Family Law Amendment Bill 2023, Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023 4

Family Law Amendment Bill 2023

Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023

Second Reading 4 10:25 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I rise to speak on the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 and the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023. As we have just decided as the Senate, given the debate will run concurrently with debate on the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill, I ask that the Senate take note of my earlier comments about that particular measure. There are few things in the Commonwealth Attorney-General's portfolio that have a more direct impact on Australians than family law. Every year, thousands of Australians will find themselves going through the pain and sadness of separation, and in a small proportion of those cases disputes will be decided by a judge in Australia's family law courts. As a nation, we should have a priority. We should aim for a system that resolves those disputes as quickly and as cleanly as possible. That is in everybody's interests. Where children are involved, we should at all times prioritise their best interests. Many parts of this bill are moved by good intentions. As Senator Scarr himself, who sat on the committee that looked at this bill and inquired into it, has stated and as we also recognise, as Senator Scarr did, in particular in the additional comments that he provided through the committee process, many of the problems that the bill we have before us seeks to address—again as Senator Scarr has just articulated, in too many places, the proposals put forward by the government do not align with those problems. They go beyond recommendations made by previous reviews. They have unintended consequences, and we'll be moving some amendments to assist with addressing the unintended consequences. Or they themselves have not been road-tested. Our very real concern is that some of the solutions in this bill may actually make things worse for Australian families, and nobody wants to see that. That is something that, as legislatures, we should be very cautious about, particularly when we are dealing with a system that is meant to guide people through some of the most difficult parts of their lives. There is an extraordinary amount that could be said about this bill, but we have limited time. In the interests of all Australian families who will be affected, there is a tremendous amount to be explored on the record. However, I will highlight a select few things. Schedule 1 of the bill deals with the parenting framework, and the most significant change in the schedule is the repeal of the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility, which applies when courts make parenting orders. Now, the introduction of that presumption was a triumph. It was indeed a triumph of bipartisan and sensible reform. Prior to 2003, there was widespread concern about how courts dealt with contact and residency issues for children after a relationship breakdown. The way courts approach those issues left many parents feeling excluded from their children's lives after separation. Often this turned the debate away from the benefits that children derive from a positive and caring relationship with both parents and focused on arguments about equal time. Against that backdrop, many will recall, Prime Minister Howard commissioned an inquiry into the family law system that was chaired by Kay Hull AO and resulted in the landmark report Every picture tells a story: report on the inquiry into child custody arrangements in the event of family separation. That report was remarkable in that its recommendations were unanimous and bipartisan, something we should all be incredibly proud of. The report was remarkable again in that it involved a roll call of Labor luminaries: Julia Irwin, the Hon. Graham Edwards, Jennie George AO, the Hon. Roger Price and Harry Quick. They joined with the coalition members of the committee to work through the issues. That took a number of years. Why? Because they wanted to get it right, and they were united in recommending a rebuttable presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. Their recommendations were then given effect by changes to the Family Law Act that was then passed in 2006. Now, among other things, the reforms said that the courts must apply a presumption that is in the best interests of the child for there to be equal shared parental responsibility. The essence of the idea is that, where it is safe to do so, parents should cooperate in raising their children. Critically, the presumption does not apply in circumstances where there is abuse or family violence, and it is not a presumption that parenting orders should allocate time to parents on a 50/50 basis; rather, it is about the shared responsibility that parents have for decision-making about their child after separation. The 2006 reforms established important guide rails on how parenting orders should be made. Now, when we look at the case for change, the reforms proposed by Labor in this bill remove those guide rails. I can assure you that the coalition recognises that the law needs to keep up with the changes in society. We recognise absolutely that there is room for improvement and we also recognise the overwhelming body of evidence is that this needs to be improved, and that is actually why it was the former coalition government who initiated the Australian Law Reform Commission's inquiry into the family law system. What did the ALRC state in relation to the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility? The ALRC said 'that it supports the idea that a presumption of shared parental responsibility serves as a good starting point for negotiation between parties and recommended the concept be retained'. It did agree in principle with the existing exceptions to that presumption. However, this is what the ALRC also noted that 'in practice, parental responsibility has often been conflated with equal time arrangements. That conflation could then detract from a focus on the child's best interests.' So what the ALRC actually recommended was the law needs to be clarified. Specifically, it recommended that the provision be amended to replace the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility with a presumption of joint decision-making about major long-term issues. That approach was also supported by the joint select committee inquiry into Australia's family law system, chaired by the Honourable Kevin Andrews. That committee expressly considered the ALRC recommendation and acknowledged that the presumption is often conflated with equal time. The majority on the committee recommended amending the wording of the presumption to address the current misunderstanding of the provision that equal shared parental responsibility equates to equal time with the children. Let's now look at the approach that the government has taken in this bill. What we have is the work has been done, the recommendations are clear that the presumption should be reformed and clarified, and the coalition agrees with that. But Labor's approach in this bill goes that much further. They want to repeal the presumption entirely. It is illuminating that when he consulted on the exposure draft of the bill, the Attorney-General, in typical style, never bothered to ask whether or not the presumption should be retained. He treated repeal as a given yet that is not what the body of evidence is in the presumption. The independent, impartial and expert recommendation of the ALRC, under this Attorney-General, never actually had a chance. Labor, under this Attorney-General, has abandoned the careful bipartisan approach that led to the introduction of the presumption in the first place. I would say that is actually a sad thing for Australian families. If I look very briefly at the definition of 'member of the family', schedule 3 of the bill extends the definition of 'relative' for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children to include anyone who is considered a relative in that child's culture. We support this in principle, but, in the Attorney's enthusiasm, yet again, like so much that he does, in ramming this bill through this place the practical implications of extending that definition have not been considered. There are some obvious consequences. There are obligations in the Family Law Act to notify the courts about family violence. The changes in schedule 3 mean that, for Indigenous children, 'family violence' would include violence amongst anyone who falls within the extended definition. The effect of the changes introduced would be to apply the notification obligation to a much wider group of people. You would therefore have an obligation to notify the court even if the people involved were not raising the child, and you'd never need to notify for a non-Indigenous family. It leaves open the possibility that people who were not involved in the litigation could have their medical and police records subpoenaed. It also imposes an additional, more onerous burden which applies only to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. Late on Friday, Labor circulated amendments to address this issue. That is welcome, if somewhat belated, as we had already raised this issue—it is a belated change, but it is a welcome change. But what does it actually tell us? It tells us that the bill the Attorney has tried to ram through would actually have made things worse for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families. That is unacceptable. What else has he therefore missed in trying to ram this bill through? We don't know. Despite our request, Labor opposed an inquiry that would have actually asked the communities. Let's go ask the communities about how they feel about how these changes would work in practice. What do the changes mean for communities in Palm Island and Alice Springs? What is the interplay with the child protection system? Well, we actually won't know now until after the bill is passed. In relation to the review of the operation of the Federal Circuit and Family Court in schedule 8, it is a measure on which the government chose not to consult. It is about the review of the merger of our family law courts, and it brings forward the review date by two years. Why would the government do that? We know from the committee process that the measure was included solely at the request of the Attorney's office. No-one else was asking for it. When you actually talk to the federal and family law courts, guess what? They don't want it. But what we do know is that this particular Attorney-General has an ideological fixation on opposing the Family Court's merger, despite the evidence that shows that, finally, we've had a step forward in providing a better experience for Australian families. The family law courts should exist, first and foremost, to serve Australian families. It is their interests that should come first, not the ideological interests of the Attorney-General or the concerns of lawyers or judges. This is about the best interests of the Australian people. And, despite years of COVID lockdowns and disruptions, the early indications are that the merger has been extremely successful in reducing the amount of time that Australian families spend being dragged through Family Court processes. In other words, the merger is working in their best interests. But, instead of allowing the courts the time to bed down these changes, the Attorney-General, because of his ideological opposition, wants to now bring forward the review date. He wants to relitigate the issue. It is a point of pride for him. He wants his ideology to come before the interests of Australian families. Quite frankly, I will reject that type of opportunism. Changes to the family law system should aim to reduce the pain, cost and time associated with separation. They should not be a place for political pride. So, as I've stated, the coalition agrees that many of the issues this bill tries to deal with should be addressed. The problems are well recognised, but, in the committee process, we need to explore further the unintended consequences that some of these changes will have. It is sad for Australians that, in putting this bill before the parliament, Labor decided not to try and work with the opposition. They decided to abandon bipartisanship. As I said, we will be moving a number of amendments to this legislation. In some cases, Labor themselves have already recognised they made a mistake, and we will support the amendments Labor are putting forward because we would have moved those amendments ourselves. But there are other amendments that we will move in good faith to make this bill a better bill. As Senator Scarr asked, why did they take the word 'meaningful' out of 'relationship with the child'? We will move an amendment to put that word back in, and I would ask for the government please to consider our amendment seriously. 10:40 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise to speak on the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 and the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023, and I note at the outset that the Greens will be supporting both of these bills. After years of inaction and unnecessary and damaging inquiries, I welcome some positive reforms to the family law system. The family law amendment bills aim to make the family law system safer for women and children, and they do this by putting children's welfare first. The Family Law Amendment Bill does a number of things, which include removing the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. This is a damaging and regressive provision, implemented by the Howard government, which has been widely misconstrued in the community and often weaponised in family law court cases to claim equal time with children, even when that is not in the best interests of the child, such as in cases of domestic and family violence. Repealing this presumption will make the family law system safer for women and children. The Family Law Amendment Bill also expands the definition of 'family member' to better capture First Nations cultural norms and kinship arrangements. We support that. I'm pleased to see a new requirement for independent children's lawyers to actually meet with the child and give them the opportunity to express a view about proposed parenting arrangements. We also welcome the broadened duty of lawyers and judges to act to achieve the best interests of children. The Family Law Amendment Bill also gives the minister the power to develop accreditation standards for family law report writers, which are long overdue. I've had countless people raise concerns with me, both through Senate inquiry processes and in separate meetings with me over many years now, the varied quality of family law report writers. There's no quality control despite the crucial role that those people play in the court process, and the conclusions that they draw are often unquestioned and very difficult to challenge. We urge the government to move quickly on the accreditation standards for family report writers. Get this done! It will have a huge impact and there's not a moment to lose. The main bill also clarifies the restriction on publishing details of Family Court matters to ensure that information can be provided to relevant authorities. That's obviously similar to the accompanying Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill, which introduces a new framework aimed at improving access to information from state and territory family violence and child protection systems during family law proceedings. They're important reforms because they empower the family law courts to procure from state and territory agencies information related to family violence, and they provide for the admission of that information into evidence. This brings me to the issue of perpetrators subpoenaing counselling records of victims-survivors as part of family law cases. The exposure draft of the main bill did propose some restrictions to this, but they were deleted from the final bill after feedback from stakeholders on this sensitive and complicated issue. Attempting to weaponise a person's confidential records through the family law courts is an obvious abuse of power and privilege, yet, as evidence to the Senate inquiry into these bills made clear, a blanket ban on access to medical or psychological records is not always helpful, as that information can both identify and conceal evidence that's useful to keeping women safe. It is important that the right balance be struck to protect vulnerable people. It's important to ensure that people who are seeking the mental health support and counselling they need won't fear that information becoming public or known to a perpetrator and then used against them in family law cases, deterring them from seeking the help they need. It's also important to ensure that the court has the information it needs to decide what's in the best interests of the child. I'm pleased that the government is reconsidering the shape and nature of these amendments and working with stakeholders to strike that balance. We would like to see the government progress those reforms promptly and in a way that both protects survivors and ensures the court has the information it needs to make decisions about the best interests of the child. We look forward to engaging further on that crucial topic. The women's safety sector and legal advocates have long called for a child safety focus, and these bills at least partially deliver on that. However, their child-safety-focused outcomes can only be achieved with adequate resourcing of the court system. The court system was already set back by the abolition of the specialist Family Court under the Morrison government. Very few in the legal profession thought that the Federal Circuit and Family Court merger was a good idea. Conservative estimates suggest that at least 60 per cent of Family Court matters involve family violence, and other estimates have it at 90 per cent. Even those that don't involve violence regularly involve complex parenting or property matters. The loss of specialisation in a court that relies on specialist expertise to navigate complex matters and to ensure the safety of children has only made those existing pressures more extreme. Reform should strengthen a system, not lead to the diminution of specialisation. The now-amalgamated Federal Circuit and Family Court has taken some steps to recognise and expedite family law matters where violence or child abuse is alleged to be occurring, but there is still the need for specialist judges and court officers to deliver justice properly. Moreover, we hear so many tales of how poorly the court recognises and deals with violence against women and children. This is not the first time I've said this, nor will it be the last: we urgently need comprehensive family and domestic violence education and trauma-informed training for the judiciary, legal practitioners, independent children's lawyers, family law report writers, the police and all others associated with the court process. Justice delayed is justice denied so, in addition to that trauma training, the court needs more resourcing. Review after review has confirmed that the entire family law framework is overstretched and underresourced. The government must ensure that legal aid, community legal centres, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services, family violence prevention legal services and various peak bodies have adequate and secure funding to provide timely advice and representation to parties. Failure to strengthen that legal assistance sector will simply exacerbate the delays and costs that directly impact on the accessibility and quality of justice. Whilst the legislative reforms that we're debating today are welcome, full funding for frontline family and domestic violence support services is needed to ensure that women and children don't remain at risk. And, as always, the community legal sector deserves ample and secure funding. I'm a former CLC lawyer myself, and that sector is crucial to access to justice; it provides top-quality legal advice and support. CLC lawyers move mountains to assist their clients and they often do so either for free or for a fraction of the price that clients would need to provide in the private sector. I note that the NLAP review, which is a review of the five-year funding agreement between the states and the federal government for legal centres is currently underway, and I urge that it deliver appropriate financial recognition to this vital sector. I extend my deep gratitude to all the advocates, practitioners and frontline service providers who continue to fight for better protections for vulnerable people and for a safer family law system. This is critical work, but it's not easy work, and we thank you for all that you do. The improvements to the family law system in the upcoming bills are important ones, but there is much more work to be done. At this stage, I will move a second reading amendment to the info-sharing bill on behalf of Senator Thorpe; it has been circulated, as amended, in the chamber. At the request of Senator Thorpe, in respect of the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023 I move: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to work with the states and territories to ensure that training on family violence is provided to employees or officers involved in the information sharing scheme established by this bill, including training on: (a) recognising the dynamics of family violence; (b) working with victim-survivors of family violence; and (c) response-based practice and cultural competence in relation to family violence". 10:48 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise to speak on the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023. The bill provides significant reforms to ensure that children's best interests are placed at the centre of the family law system and its operation. This is a fundamentally important reform and something that is much needed. I served on the select committee inquiry into family law with some people who are in the chamber now. I have to say that I didn't have any personal experience in family law previously, but this certainly opened my eyes to what happens—the prejudice and the impact that going through this process has on children. Therefore, I'm very proud to be here and able to support this bill. As I said, after sitting on the joint committee on family law, I heard so much evidence provided to the committee about improving the family law system. This reform has said on a consistent basis that putting the rights and interests of the child in family law disputes should be the No. 1 priority within the family law system in this country. This bill clarifies the needlessly complex framework in the Family Law Act 1975 for determining parenting arrangements to ensure that the best interests of children are the focus of decision-making. This is the Albanese Labor government delivering for the interests of the child and in the interest of families and their communities. These laws impact whether your child's at a day care centre or in school—it's very complex, the impact that this has on the child's welfare, on those who are caring and on those who are educating, to try to balance the relationship between parents and the child. This bill responds to consist an calls from women and children's safety advocates for a focus on safety and a repeal of the presumption of equal shared parenting responsibility. The bill also implements a number of improvements to the way family matters are managed. These changes will increase a court's ability to prevent harm to parties and children from protracted and adversarial litigation. For those of you who have been following this bill, it was introduced in the Senate on 13 June 2023. The bill was also referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for an inquiry and report by 24 August. I commend my fellow committee members for the work that they did in relation to this bill. The committee made seven recommendations for further changes to the text of the bill, and the Albanese government supports these recommendations. I'll note the detail of some of these recommendations. First, amendments have been drafted to schedule 1 of this bill to include specific reference to consideration of the history of family violence, abuse and neglect as factors that a court must consider in parenting orders. These amendments also strengthen language that recognises the importance of cultural connection for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. For recommendation 2, amendments have been drafted to the application provision for key schedules and parts to ensure the changes apply to all matters after commencement, except where final hearings are under way. For recommendation 3, amendments have been drafted to remove specific provisions for the awarding of costs in parenting order compliance and enforcement matters. This will avoid duplication of the court's discretionary power to award costs in family law matters under section 117 of the Family Law Act. For recommendations 4 and 5, amendments have been drafted to the bill to expand definitions of 'member of the family' and 'relative' for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. These amendments will ensure it is clear that kinship systems are captured within these definitions. They will also guarantee that disclosure obligations do not apply to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as a result of these expanded definitions. For recommendation 6, amendments have been drafted to repeal subsection 111(1B) of the Family Law Act in conjunction with regulation change. This will enable the objections of the child to a return order to be taken into consideration under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The recommendations also reflect the views of key stakeholders such as the Law Council of Australia and Women's Legal Services Australia. As such, they are expected to be well received. I thank those organisations for their ongoing advocacy for these very important changes that, unfortunately, impact so many lives in this country. The committee made two further recommendations to the government to undertake an education and awareness campaign on the bill and develop appropriate protections in relation to the use of sensitive information. The Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 represents the government's commitment to improving the family law system, so that it is accessible, safer, and simpler to use, and so that it delivers justice and fairness for all Australian families. It is crucial for this bill to be able to ensure that it is safer and simpler, and that it delivers justice and fairness to all Australian families. Most importantly, it places the best interests of children at the centre of the system and its operation. I can't believe that we had to introduce a bill that would do that. Having heard evidence not only in relation to this bill but in the select committee, I find it very obvious that in the community there is a lot of anger, a lot of misunderstanding and a lot of interpretation of the law. To be frank with you, it is just devastating to hear about some of the impact on children and young adolescents, in terms of their mental health and their general health, from going through the family law system. So we have to do something. It's crucial that we streamline it and make it simpler. Sometimes, along the way, it would be nice to remember that these people were once in love. Therefore, they should remember that when making provision for their children going forward. As I said before, I'm proud to stand here before you in the debate on the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 because it's a great policy initiative, a bill that will make tangible differences to improve the lives of Australians who go through the family law system. As I pointed out earlier, the family law system has been subject to a number of significant inquiries in the past decade, including the Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry which produced the 2019 report Family law for the future: an inquiry into the family law system (ALRC report 135) and the 2019 to 2021 inquiry by the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System, which I served on and which opened my eyes, unfortunately, to the implications of a breakdown in families and the impact that it has on those individuals and, more importantly, on their children. These inquiries consistently identified challenges for the family law system, including overly complex and confusing legislation, community misrepresentation about the law, and the regularity of protracted and harmful litigation. It is now time for the government to address a backlog of recommendations for legislative reform and to centre the best interests of children in the family law system. The Albanese government is committed to the ongoing improvement of Australia's federal courts. To this end, this bill also seeks to enhance the operations of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. I'm confident that the reforms will ultimately strengthen the voice of Australian children in family law matters by introducing a requirement for independent children's lawyers to meet directly with children. Further, it will increase judicial discretion to appoint independent children's lawyers in matters under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The bill will provide courts with greater powers to protect parties and children from the harmful affects of protracted and adversarial litigation. The bill will also make the restrictions on the publication of family law proceedings clearer and easier to understand for both legal professionals and people with a non-legal background. I thank my fellow Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee members for their work on this bill. Further, I would like to recognise the tireless work of the Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, in helping to make this bill become a reality in this place. It is long overdue. It's not as if we haven't been aware of the impact that going through the family law system has been having on both parties, as well as their children. So it's regrettable that it's taken an Albanese Labor government to do this, after nine years of the previous government and the work of other committees. I know that the legal and constitutional affairs committee have done other inquiries, so they have had advice about this. We know that the legal aid commission and so many other groups have been advocating for children to become the centre of concern and for the necessary changes to be made to ensure that child safety and welfare are front and centre in the family law courts. So I'm very happy to be here and to be able to support the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023. I acknowledge the Attorney-General for his leadership in making this bill a reality. I will always give credit to those who bring about change for the better, which is why I'm very happy to be here as a member of the Albanese government. We are doing everything we can to help Australian children navigate their way through the implications of going through the Family Court without harm. I commend this bill to the chamber, and I urge those who are contemplating any amendments to consider the bill and their amendments. If they're for the better, then no doubt the chamber will view those as it should for better outcomes for all of those. I commend this bill to the floor. 11:00 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland At the outset, can I just pick up the last point Senator Polley made, which is a generous comment and certainly reflects my view: that any amendments put forward by any senator in this place with respect to this extraordinarily important bill, the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023, which will have such an impact on families and on children across this nation, should be considered very, very carefully and in a non-partisan manner. From my perspective, all of us want to see the best interests of children at the centre of these decision-making processes. That's my genuine, passionate belief, and I'm sure it is shared by senators across the chamber. Having started this process this week, let's hope that at the end of the week we can reflect on a process where all amendments, whoever they have been moved by, have been moved in good faith to enhance and improve the legislation and have been carefully considered by this Senate. As a preliminary comment, I'd also like to put on the record my thanks to the witnesses who appeared during the one-day inquiry and to the members of the secretariat, who turned around the report in very quick order. We only had a one-day inquiry, unfortunately, but it was a very fruitful inquiry. In particular, I would like to thank those witnesses—I'm sure Senator Waters would agree; she was there when they gave their testimony—who shared their personal experiences and the difficulties they faced as they navigated the family law system, including in areas where they were subjected to awful personal circumstances, including coercion. It was quite inspirational to hear from those witnesses. I would also like to acknowledge Senator Green, who raised issues in relation to the implementation of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The recommendation in that regard in relation to the bill is a very positive recommendation, and I'm very pleased the government has taken that on board. I compliment Senator Green in relation to her contribution in that regard. Senator Polley raised one point that I would like to correct. I respect her perspective, but it should be remembered that it was actually the previous coalition government that referred the Family Law Act to the Australian Law Reform Commission for review. The coalition government had heard the views in the community that there were issues that needed to be addressed, and it did exactly the right thing in referring the act to the Australian Law Reform Commission for review. There was an important recommendation made by the Australian Law Reform Commission that has not been picked up in this legislation but ought to be picked up. I will speak about that shortly. Another preliminary comment I would like to make is that we must remember that the vast majority of these cases are settled outside court. That's a great thing for the families—for the parents and for the children. Wherever possible, these matters should be decided in a non-adversarial process and agreement reached between all parties when they're going through a separation process. So, when we're considering the amendments to this bill, we need to appreciate and understand—the Law Council of Australia and various other people who made submissions were very clear on this—that the Family Law Act is perhaps a unique piece of legislation in that many Australians refer to the actual sections to work out what principles apply. They actually read the bill themselves in some cases, to work out what path they should be taking. That is perhaps unique in terms of the legislation that this place considers, but in my view these amendments need to be carefully considered, because I think there are ways in which they can be improved. The last preliminary point I want to make is to absolutely and totally endorse the comments of Senator Waters with respect to funding for community legal organisations. Senator Waters, probably more than anyone in this place, has firsthand experience of the importance of those organisations. A continual theme through all the submissions made to the inquiry into this bill has been that it's one thing to impose obligations upon people but another thing to actually fund the community legal organisations who are going to assist in the implementation of those obligations. The two cannot be divorced. There needs to be appropriate funding for the process. In my view, it is a false economy to deny that substantial funding that's required, especially for our community legal organisations, who are assisting some of our most vulnerable Australians to navigate through this process. So I commend Senator Waters on her comments in that regard. Given the time available, I'm going to limit my comments to the parenting framework contained in part VII of the Family Law Amendment Bill. This is the framework that deals with parenting orders and child custody orders and is perhaps of most interest to Australians. I think the bill is nearly there and that this chamber as a whole could support the bill, with a few tweaks, in its totality. So, again, I ask the government in particular to consider a number of amendments to the bill, which are put forward in good faith and in a spirit whereby we think it would actually be a very positive thing if this Senate could unanimously support the amendments to the Family Law Bill. I will move through three of those proposed amendments now. The first is with respect to the principles and objectives clause. For those listening in the gallery or at home, the issue here is that at the moment the Family Law Act, as regards parenting, custody arrangements and orders, is extraordinarily complicated. To draw that in stark relief for people listening, I will quote from one judge, who described applying the best-interests framework—that is, in terms of making orders in relation to children in their best interests—as 'a dilemma of labyrinthine complexity to arise'. I think that means it's complicated. That person is a judge. It's complicated; I'll translate for you. Another judge, Judge Riethmuller, outlined the complexities of the pathway in an article titled 'Deciding parenting cases under part VII: 42 easy steps'. I think that underlines the position we have: it's too complicated at the moment; the considerations et cetera need to be rationalised, and we will get a better outcome in that regard. So, the case for reform has been met, and I absolutely support the reform process. However, at the same time as the simplification is occurring, there are very important elements of the bill, in particular in relation to the principles and objectives, that reflect what I believe are community expectations around both parents. The benefit to a child—subject to safety issues and subject to domestic violence issues, of course—must be paramount. Those must be respected. But, subject to that, a number of signposts and guidance in the principles and objectives call upon the court to consider the positive impact of both parents being involved in the parenting of their children. I don't think we should remove those. I don't think we need to remove those. I think it's actually contrary to the best intentions of all of us to remove those, because parents going through this process need to be able to openly act and see what those principles and objectives are, because they will provide a signpost. The government says those principles and objectives are too complicated. From my perspective, they're written in standard, basic English, and I think every Australian would understand them. But, at the same time as the government is saying that we need to simplify, a reference to the Convention on the Rights of the Child remains in the principles and objectives. People reading the bill are given an internet link where they can go and read the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which covers a whole range of matters. On my count, there were six articles that deal with parenting orders out of approximately 30. On the one hand, the government says, 'We want to simplify it,' but, on the other hand, in the principles and objectives people are referred to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which, to be frank, is a piece of international legalese. I can't imagine your average parent who doesn't have a legal background actually understanding a lot of the concepts contained in that convention. Absolutely, simplify it, but in my view, the government is removing the simplest parts. I genuinely think that's counterproductive, and I think we could come to a better solution in that regard. The second point on parenting orders with respect to children is something I talked about in my earlier contribution. One of the things the court needs to consider is a slimmed-down number of best-interests tests, which is appropriate, provided they're amended to take into account past family violence, abuse and neglect. The government is proposing to amend one of those best-interests tests this way. At the moment, the act reads, 'the benefit to the child of being able to have a meaningful relationship with the child's parents.' The government is proposing to take out the word 'meaningful'. Why take out the word 'meaningful'? The government says, 'This will simplify it.' But the point is that the very act of taking out that word, 'meaningful', sends the wrong message to the community. A strong theme that has come through all the contributions on this debate is that this process is as much about sending a message to the wider community as it is about the legal drafting itself. The Law Council of Australia has said, 'Keep the phrase "meaningful relationship". That phrase has been the subject of case law over many years.' The experts from the Law Council of Australia—the specific state jurisdictions of family law practitioners—are saying keep the word 'meaningful'. We know what that phrase means. It actually assists them to advise their clients and assist parents to come to resolutions outside the court process. That's what the legal practitioners are saying. Is the reform process going to be derailed over one adjective? Surely not. Keep that word, 'meaningful', in that best-interests test. There's no reason not to. I know the Attorney can be obstinate at times—we all can. I can be; everyone can be. But there is no reason why we should not keep that adjective, 'meaningful'. There's no reason at all. It sends the wrong message. The third point I will to make in relation to parenting orders is on the case that's been made in relation to reform of the so-called equal shared parenting presumption. Many parents, when they're discussing these issues, equate it to mean 'equal time'. It was never intended to mean that, but that confusion is there and needs to be addressed. The Australian Law Reform Commission proposed that there be a presumption, always subject to safety issues and the best interests of the child, that there should be a prima facie assumption in the initial stages of joint decision-making between parents about major long-term issues. They would include things such as education, religion and health. That's something the Australian Law Reform Commission suggested in terms of the drafting. If you're going to get rid of the presumption of 'equal shared parenting responsibility', you need to replace it with something else. Their recommendation was to replace it with 'joint decision-making about major long-term issues'. Again that makes absolute sense in terms of the drafting. I want to conclude my contribution by quoting Professor Bruce Smyth, an expert in these matters—more expert than Senator Scarr. He said: Children themselves are clear on the importance of having at least a safe and loving home after parental separation—or ideally two such homes. He and family law practitioners in Queensland, Western Australia and the Hunter Valley all suggested—and recommended—that there is substantial merit in adopting the Australian Law Reform Commission's suggestion. I truly hope that the government takes those comments as they were intended, as they were made in good faith to enhance the bills. 11:15 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I rise to speak to the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 and the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023. I begin by thanking my colleague Senator Larissa Waters for her leadership and tireless advocacy over many years for better support for women and children. The Family Law Amendment Bill will primarily amend the Family Law Act with the aim of making the family law system safer and simpler for separating families to navigate and ensuring that the best interests of children are placed at its centre. The Greens welcome the introduction of family law amendments aimed at putting children's welfare first in family law matters. For far too long our family law system has been fraught with challenges, leaving children caught in the crossfire of disputes and decisions that they should never have to bear. Since the Howard government rewrote Australia's family laws in 2006 we've seen the presumption of shared care weaponised, instead of the best interests of kids coming first. The women's safety sector and legal advocates have long called for a child safety focused court. We look forward to these reforms moving closer to that goal—and I really thank all the advocates who have worked so hard for the changes that are being made today—but these outcomes can only be achieved with adequate resources, and the Federal Court and the Family Court and the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children remain woefully underfunded. Gendered violence is at the core of many cases in the family law system, and we know that children frequently bear the brunt of violent relationships and protracted legal matters. The reforms proposed in this legislation are grounded in the fundamental principle that the best interests of the child must always be paramount. This means that the mental, emotional and physical wellbeing of our children must guide every decision, every judgement and every action taken by our family law system. One of the most significant changes is the establishment of a single entry point for family law matters, which will not only streamline the process for families in crisis but also ensure that the focus remains squarely on the needs of the child. Another key reform is the focus on family violence victims. This report stresses the need for greater support for victims of family violence, recognising that this is a critical component of the proposed reforms. The Australian Greens believe that women have the right to equal respect, responsibilities, opportunities and outcomes in society. Women have the right to enjoy equality to men in all spheres of society, and their human rights, experience, knowledge, work and other contributions to society should be recognised and valued equally to men's. That is why the Greens platform calls to eliminate violence against women at home, at work and in public and to massively increase investment in the measures that would help us achieve this. In addition, one key way that the government can provide women with more economic security and support when fleeing violent relationships is by raising the rate of income support. Last year Anne Summers published her report on violence and poverty and revealed that government payments offered little support for those leaving violent relationships. There is still so much more to do. Our social security system should support people when they lose their income, when they fall sick and when they are seeking safety from a violent partner. Income support payments like JobSeeker are far below the poverty line and they don't offer the financial security needed for people to pay the rent, let alone find new accommodation. I want to use the rest of my time here this morning to share a story with you which was told to our Senate Community Affairs References Committee inquiry into poverty. This was the heartbreaking testimony of witness A. It shows why we need not just the family law system to be reformed but our whole social security system to be upgraded to truly put the rights of women and children at the forefront. We need holistic reform. Witness A told us: Seven years ago, I unexpectedly became homeless as a result of domestic violence. It was in just one weekend that the coercive control that I'd lived with for my whole marriage suddenly escalated to the point where my life was threatened. When I tried to protect myself and my children, they were threatened as well. I went to a refuge with my children. My then husband withdrew all the money from our joint bank accounts, which was all we had, and he hid it. He also started legal proceedings against me in the Federal Circuit Court so that I would be the respondent and I would have no choice but to leave the refuge to appear in court and also to find and somehow pay for legal representation for the next 5½ years. That's how long the Family Court proceedings took. I had no option to opt out because I was the respondent. So it's been seven years of alternating between precarious employment and unemployment, of homelessness and ongoing housing insecurity and food insecurity … I'm trying to explain to my kids that we can't afford things but I'm not able to explain how we got into this situation, because of being legally barred from disclosing the domestic violence to them. I've had seven years of pretending to my kids that I'm not hungry or I've already eaten. … … … There's the anxiety of ongoing abuse from the ex, with threats of retaliation at times, and also the ongoing financial stress from the financial abuse. … … … I was not allowed to work during the marriage. I had a long time out of the workforce, and since then I've had to … take very low paid and physically—and psychologically—unsafe jobs. I didn't have an option. I had to remain housed; otherwise, I would lose care of my children. In two of those jobs, I was left with severe trauma from workplace psychological injuries, and each time the compounded traumas made it harder to find suitable employment afterwards. With housing, I was put on a priority housing list seven years ago, but nothing's ever come of that. Over the last seven years in private rentals, I've never, at any time, paid less than 80 per cent of my income in housing. Sometimes it has been more than 100 per cent. But I knew that if I ever became homeless again, that would be the end of my shared care of my children. I've managed to stay housed only by, once, going begging to church authorities for emergency rental assistance and, another time, by receiving a one-off victim recognition payment from DCJ just at the point where I had no means of paying my next month's rent. Next time that happens, I won't have anywhere left to turn. There have been a lot of health effects. The first few years I lost a lot of weight both from the stress and from not eating much. Then I had a lot of gut problems and developed an auto-immune disorder which I didn't recognise for a long time … Last year I had emergency gallbladder surgery. I knew I had some gallbladder issues, and I had a few bouts of excruciating pain, but I couldn't afford to see a specialist, so by the time I ended up in emergency my gallbladder was rupturing. I also have chronic migraines, but I can't afford to see a specialist or get good medication for that. I've tried a couple of times to study part time to try to get some qualification that would help me get better jobs that would pay more than $25 an hour. Twice, I've had to quit the courses I was doing partway through because the supports just weren't there that would help someone in my circumstances to succeed in study. My kids' education has been affected as well, despite my best efforts to shield them. I can't afford the extracurricular activities and expenses. They wear donated uniforms. The teachers get them in trouble for not having the right shoes. It's really unfair. As my kids have got older, I've seen them trying to pretend to me that they didn't really want to do the things that they couldn't do. That makes me really sad. In terms of my social life, it's really hard, because I can't just go and meet up with a friend for coffee—I can't afford to do that. … … … Lastly, I want to talk about income support payments. A couple of times during this time, I've been unemployed for a while, and I've needed to access income support payments—first Newstart and then Jobseeker—but after my most recent experience with Jobseeker I decided I was never going to apply for it again. What I found was that the interactions with the Centrelink people and the job agency replicated the coercive control and the psychological abuse dynamics of the marriage that I had escaped. The loss of agency, the verbal abuse, the gaslighting tactics and the dehumanisation from those agencies made me suicidal. My risk of suicide was higher as a result of dealing with Centrelink than it was from the direct incitements to suicide from my ex-husband. I've decided that I would rather literally starve to death slowly if I am out of work again . I've come close to that a few times, but I'd rather go that way than deal with Centrelink again. I want to thank Witness A for sharing that with us. It just shows the interaction of all of the government policies and systems that are needed if we are truly going to be putting the needs and the rights of women and children first. This bill makes some welcome changes, but so much more needs to be done to support women like Witness A and their children across family law, housing and income support. So I urge the government to treat this bill as another small step forward and to commit themselves to make the holistic changes that are still required, particularly with income support and in investment in public, social and affordable housing. These are all required. They're actions that this government can take, needs to take and must take if we are going to put the rights of women and the rights of children at the centre of everything that we're doing. 11:26 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I rise to speak on the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 and the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023. There's no doubt that matters of family law strike at the very core and heart of our society. We know that families are the very bedrock of our society. Of course, any change that we make to the family law system needs to be dealt with quite sincerely and with real care. I have no doubt about the intentions and the motives of the government in bringing forward these changes. In the last parliament, I actually moved to establish the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System. It was an inquiry that ran over most of the term of that parliament. We heard from many witnesses. We had over 1,300 individual confidential submissions. I've got to say that what I heard in the time that I spent engaging on this issue and hearing from those witnesses was some of the most moving and challenging evidence that I've come across in all of the time—the four and a bit years—that I've been here in this place. When it comes to issues of family law, when a marriage breaks down or when partners separate, particularly when it involves children, it's probably the biggest issue that's ever occurred in someone's life. And so, when those people bring forward their personal stories, they can be very challenging. We know that most couples are able to manage their affairs without needing to engage with the family law system, and they're able to work through their personal situation and deal with it in a way that doesn't involve the courts and doesn't involve the complication of everything that's involved. But we know that, for those that do require engagement with the family law system, it can be very complex and very costly. It goes over an extraordinary length of time. It's something that, frankly, if it can be made better, should be. So I do welcome the government bringing on the Family Law Amendment Bill. I feel that it's a little rushed. As I said, that inquiry that we held in the last parliament ran over almost an entire term of that parliament. We hit COVID. We were able to hold a number of hearings pre COVID. We were in Queensland—in Townsville, if I recall, Rockhampton and Brisbane. Then the Prime Minister had the address to the nation and shut everything down while we were at the airport to fly to Sydney, so the rest of the hearings that we held were held virtually. They were held as we heard from people from around the country over the screens of their mobile phones, iPads or computer screens. Nonetheless, we heard some very powerful evidence. There were 13 hearings over that inquiry. I think this bill, though, is a little rushed. There are some drafting issues that need to be resolved, many of which are resolved by the amendments that Senator Cash has foreshadowed, which go to fixing, in particular, some drafting issues and some issues that probably weren't really thought through. I do want to commend my colleague Senator Paul Scarr for the work that he did and the substantial work that he put in to preparing those additional comments that are contained in the committee's report that we're considering here today. I want to commend him for that. It's been very helpful to me to understand the particular changes for this bill, which I'll go through in a moment. I do want to commend Senator Scarr for his work that he put in. I know that he personally did it and had a great amount of insight. To have someone with a law background helps. When I was on that committee—I don't have a law background; I've got a background in social services –in the last parliament, I was able to engage very much on the practical, families issues that arise whenever there's a family dispute and whenever there's a separation, but Senator Scarr bringing his experience of law has been of real assistance and no doubt was to that committee too. Family law is complex. Above all, it directly impacts families, which are, as I said, the very fabric of our society. Every year, tens of thousands of Australians find themselves going through the pain and sadness of separation. Some of the measures in these bills, in particular the second bill that we're dealing with, which is the information sharing bill, are welcome. But in many areas, especially the Family Law Amendment Bill, we recognise that there are serious issues, and the solutions proposed, frankly, go too far or are untested. And so, when we're passing law, particularly in this area, we must be very careful. There are few things in the Commonwealth Attorney-General's portfolio that have a more direct impact on Australians than family law. Every year, tens of thousands of Australians, as I said, find themselves going through the pain and sadness of separation. These measures go some of the way to addressing that but really, as I said, are untested. We join with the government in recognising that many of the issues this bill seeks to address are problems that are in real need of a solution, but in too many places the proposals put forward by the government in the bill do not align with those problems. They go beyond recommendations made by previous reviews and are not supported by the profession. They have unintended consequences and have not been road-tested in communities on the ground. The coalition's very real concern is that, although we join with the government in recognising these problems, the solutions in this bill, as I've said, are untested and may actually make things worse for Australian families, and that is something that we as legislators must be very cautious about. In the report that I referred to from the last parliament, from the Joint Select Committee into the Family Law System, in the first interim report of that committee, the committee received evidence both in favour of and objecting to the repealing of the presumption for equal shared parental responsibility and the requirement to consider equal time. We heard from people on both sides of this debate. Many of the professionals said that this element needed to be amended, but many of the parents that put in submissions said it actually needed to be strengthened. The committee also heard that there should be a mandatory starting point of fifty-fifty care in all parenting arrangements. That wasn't a view that was universal, but there were many that brought that view forward to the committee. I want to quote from the Lone Father's Association's submission. They said: There appears to be no evidence that the many separating parents who have gone down this pathway by consent have had their experiences considered, rather we suspect that the presumption for shared care is under attack for reasons considered in respect to parents who are unable to reach any parenting agreement and take the matter to the Federal Circuit Court or the Family Court as their first and only option. There appears to be little or no account for facts which apply to a significant number of successful shared care arrangements by consent. The Australian Brotherhood of Fathers said: The proposal is regressive and, if implemented, would, we firmly believe, be highly detrimental to the best interests of children. The proposal fails to acknowledge that the overall interests of a child, including with respect to safety, are best served by promoting the active involvement of both parents in a child's life … That is critical. Amending the definition so that it requires those key decision points in a child's life to be considered, rather than maybe having this fifty-fifty minimum requirement, is possibly one way of addressing that. What's meant by 'key decision points'? Well, that's decisions on what school the child goes to, expenditure commitments for the child, and the church or religion that they might participate in. These are key decisions that the courts can use to determine the strength of the decisions going forward, so that's something that needs to be considered. The final report of the Australian Law Reform Commission, which the committee considered, says: It appears that the primary basis for confusion is the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility, rather than the general concept of parental responsibility. So it's not just about the amount of time that is spent; it's about the responsibility that parents can take. The Australian Law Reform Commission's report said: Although the equal shared parenting provision refers to parental responsibility, rather than care, submissions and consultations confirmed widespread confusion outside of family law system professionals about its meaning. This is despite provisions later in the Act clarifying its application as requiring joint decision making about major long-term issues. The Australian Law Reform Commission were commissioned by the former government, by the Attorney-General at the time, to look into this matter, and their report said that an earlier report by the Family Law Council had: … noted the need to clarify misconceptions around equal shared parental responsibility and recommended legislative amendments to address this. This bill, in many ways, picks up on those recommendations that were made, and in that sense it's welcomed. Referring to a report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, the ALRC report said: It also urged the ALRC to consider the removal of the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility, and to develop amendments to Pt VII of the Family Law Act, which governs parenting arrangements. This, of course, goes to the very heart of the matter, and I think it's probably the element of this bill that is the most contentious. It is certainly the element that I've received the most feedback on. So I'd encourage the government to consider adopting the amendments that Senator Cash has foreshadowed, because they go to clarifying what is intended, what is meant and what is required to make sure that families are supported. The family law system can be simplified, but in the remaining time that I've got here I just want to say that there does need to be more support given to families that are going through a separation, and there needs to be much more information so that families know what they can do and what steps they need to take. The previous government invested significantly in various programs that go to helping families. The Lighthouse project is one of those programs. It fast-tracks cases involving family violence, which we know is just an absolutely insidious issue within our nation. In fact, it's getting worse—certainly in my home state of Western Australia, we know that the rates of domestic violence are going up and that it's becoming a very, very serious issue. These are matters of law, of course—law that the courts can use to determine the future for families—but I think much more attention also needs to be put on the types of programs and services that are offered to families to assist them in managing their family law matters, and just managing the process going forward. The more people we can keep out of the courts and out of the system, the better; but the more that we can help to keep families together and prevent some of the issues that actually cause separations in the first place are obviously always going to be welcomed. The government can do much more in this area, and I encourage the government to consider that. As I said, they should consider the amendments brought forward by Senator Cash. But I would also urge the government to look at the programs and support services, to be funded in a more significant way. 11:41 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I rise to speak on the bills currently before the Senate, the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 and the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023. I want to keep my contributions to the First Nations elements of these bills, but I would also like to wholeheartedly echo the contributions of my colleagues Senator Waters—she has done some amazing work on this issue—and Senator Rice. These bills and these changes are long overdue and provide much-needed modernisation to this legal framework. Of course there's still a lot of work to be done in the family courts but this is a step in the right direction. In particular, I want to focus on two elements of these bills. The first is the requirement for a standalone best-interest factor to promote the best interests of First Nations children and their rights to connection, culture, family, community and language, and the second is the broadening of the definition of 'family' to include the concept of kinship. I can't overstate how important these changes are; in particular, they come from my own lived experience. It's vital for the wellbeing of our children that they're connected to culture and also to country. Country sustains us as the traditional custodians of this land. We have taken care of this land for tens of thousands of years; it is our birthright and our sacred privilege to be on country and to care for country. As we care for and sustain our country, country cares for us and sustains us. But it's also that connection to our country and our kinship which mainstream Australians usually call their 'family tree'. The kinship connection is a matrilineal process; it governs and tells us who we are related to and also involves our totemic, or our moiety, systems. Our kids belong on country, they belong in our community and they belong with their culture, learning from their elders, taking care of their community and learning their language, their stories, their dances and their songs. This is inherently in the best interests of children. In fact, it's crucial for their psychological safety and wellbeing; studies have shown that disconnection from culture and family for First Nations children can have a significant impact on their mental health. This includes loss of identity and trauma; unfortunately, children may never recover from this. Children being removed from their families can have a long and intergenerational impact, as we have seen with the ongoing impacts and trauma from the Stolen Generations. Something that's important to take into account is the fact that children might have parents from different mobs from different areas. They need to have considerations about how both of those parents may wish to provide their children with a chance to connect to culture and to country. First Nations people have a unique concept—and therefore definition and understanding of—of family. It is called 'kinship'. As a First Nations person, I have not only a responsibility to care for my immediate family, which includes my mother, my siblings and my children but my obligations also extend to my kinship. This extends to my nieces, my nephews, my cousins and members of my community; we consider them all as part of the immediate family. Indeed, a lot of our children's connection to culture comes from our kinship relationships, so, in a way, these changes are intrinsically linked to each other. The NSW Aboriginal Women's Advisory Network explained this well in their submission to the inquiry into the Family Law Amendment Bill, saying: It is not enough for an Aboriginal child merely to watch NITV, or to be taken to Aboriginal events, such as NAIDOC events, or to participate in Aboriginal cultural programs, that are not specific to their nation and kin. It is also not enough for a child to only have contact with an Aboriginal member of the extended family who is not biologically related to the child, in lieu of any direct connection with the child's Aboriginal parents— or their kinship connections— and family. For too long, the current interpretation of the law has not been inclusive of a child's kinship relationships, so court orders have placed children in the care of people outside of these kinship relationships. The courts' recognition of kinship will play a very important role in ensuring that children enjoy their rights to culture, family, country and, in particular, language. In their submission to the inquiry into the bill, SNAICC, the Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care, recommended that ACCOs—the Aboriginal community controlled area—receive funding to develop practice guidelines and deliver training to develop the capability amongst judicial officers and other professionals in the family law system to apply these concepts. They also said: The guidelines and training should be aimed at to judges, lawyers, legal service officers, social workers and other support staff who are involved in making determinations on the meaning of member of the family or relative. They added: … it is critical to recognise that notions of kinship and associated obligations cannot necessarily be taught and learnt. A set of practice guidelines would assist by explaining general and common concepts; however they would be unable to capture the varied nature of cultural practices that are specific to different Nations. As we in this place know, they are not all the same. We know that First Nations kids are still being taken from their families at unacceptable rates; in particular, in my home state of Western Australia, which has the highest rate of child removal. We know the trauma and disconnection caused to parents, families and the wider community, and we know that they disproportionately impact First Nations families. There is still a lot of work to be done to bring these rates down and to prevent people from appearing in the Family Court in the first place. This work needs to be holistic and led by the community. It must include health reform, education, housing, family and domestic violence services, cultural centres, opportunities for kids and families to get out on country and care for country, after-school programs that are culturally appropriate, support for new families and so much more. When communities have the resources they need to look after themselves and each other, they absolutely do. It is in our blood to look after our mob. I've heard stories of kids who've been taken to Macca's for a feed but won't eat because they want to take it home to their brothers and sisters who are not there to share it with them. First Nations people are some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in this country, but we are strong and resilient, and it is culture, community and country that give us strength. So, whilst these reforms are welcome, it is so important that the courts take culture and community into account. There is so much work to be done within the Family Court system, but also, importantly, for our kids even to be on the radar of child services across this country. 11:48 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I rise to join colleagues in making a contribution to the debate on these important pieces of legislation, the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 and the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023, which are before the Senate today. Obviously, matters of family law are critically important to the future of this nation. The family unit, of course, underpins who we are as a society, and the laws relating to how we manage families, in the multitude of forms they take on, are critically important. Family breakdown is a fact of life—a very sad one, a distressing one, but one for which we need to find a way to ensure that the laws of this country support those who are going through such a stage in their life, including and particularly those who experience extreme disadvantage in this space, which of course is children. I know many of my colleagues have spoken about this by putting the perspectives in relation to the need for these laws to support and protect children who are going through the experience of family breakdown. Ensuring that we get these laws right is critically important. I think it is important to point out, before I get into the substance of my contribution, that in the spirit of getting these things right we need to make sure every perspective is considered properly and fully and is ventilated in a way that is meaningful in terms of the outcomes we reach with the legislation we produce in this place. These are not just words on paper. These are laws that impact people's lives forever. If we don't get these things right then the impacts of bad laws and bad programs that flow as a result of that are life-changing and have an intergenerational impact, which is something I'll touch on a little later in my contribution. But the amendments to this legislation that were provided by the government were distributed after close of business on Friday, and here we are, at the first order of business on Monday, dealing with it. Obviously that means some of the changes being proposed here haven't had proper consideration. That is concerning. Now, that doesn't mean everything that is being proposed is somehow bad, but it's very difficult to know. I know work has been done through the weekend to assess and understand these amendments being proposed by the government. But, again, this is so critically important, and it is essential that we get this right when we are dealing with the most important and foundational element of our society, and that is the family and the laws that relate to how we assist them in, frankly, some of their most trying times. As referenced earlier, the utmost care is needed when it comes to a system that deals with family breakdown and the elements that apply to families in traversing this very difficult part of anyone's life, particularly when it comes to children. We need to ensure that we protect and preserve the family unit as a paramount concern, because that's what shapes us as who we are today. Everyone who experiences childhood is shaped by their family experience. Sometimes that is a very negative experience. In this society, sadly, we see extreme numbers, and I recall what Senator O'Sullivan said in his contribution about the increasing incidence of family violence occurring in his home state of Western Australia. That has a negative impact on those who are experiencing those situations, and it will shape them for life. How we respond to that is central—how we make sure there are the proper supports when the family unit disintegrates and how we protect those who are fleeing family or domestic violence, particularly children, who have no say, who are not the perpetrators but the victims in every instance. How we deal with the supports they need is central to this debate. We need to avoid anything that is even remotely retrograde in regard to the laws that govern family breakdown and how we support families going through that process. As I said before, anything that takes a backward step in terms of protections, considerations by the court and the family law system that would ensure the best outcomes for family members has an impact, not just on the individual—the spousal partners and how their lives are moving on from that point post separation—but also on the children. Once a negative impact is experienced because of a system that doesn't properly support them, as I said before, that permeates through generations, just as, sadly, instances of family and domestic violence permeate through generations and have a significant impact for many generations beyond those in which the initial instance occurred. We have to prevent that from being something that continues, and that's why these laws must be right. As I know others in this debate have said, we should aim for a system that resolves disputes quickly and cleanly. That's what users of the family law system want. They're going through enough on their own with regard to family breakdown. People don't do this for fun. They do it because they have serious situations they're facing—sometimes life-threatening, as we know. Particularly where children are involved, we do need to prioritise the best interests of the child and those who are disadvantaged in the situations. As the shadow attorney-general, Senator Cash, has already indicated, some of what has been proposed in these bills is welcome and certainly needed, particularly when it comes to the second of the bills before us—the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill. But we need to recognise that just because these proposals are put forward, it doesn't mean that they're the right solutions, and that is where the concerns of the opposition arise. We look at what is put in place by way of law, and everything we do has a flow-on impact. We don't know what impacts will be felt by some of these changes—many of them will be unintended, and that is what concerns us most. So, while we join with the government in seeking to recognise the problems—and some of the issues this bill seeks to address are problems in need of a solution—too many of the proposals and that have been put forward by the government don't align with what the problems actually are. If a solution isn't fit for purpose, if it isn't actually going to address the issues that families are facing, and that the family law system and the experts who operate in that system are telling us need to be resolved, then why are we doing this? I turn back to that point about getting this right. Circulating amendments after close of business on Friday only to debate these bills in the Senate the following Monday as the first order of business—cognately, too, I might add. Previously, we were looking at dealing with these bills separately, given the importance of them and the sensitive nature of the legislation we're dealing with here—the need to protect the family unit and to preserve a foundation stone for our society. Yet these amendments have been brought in at what one might call the eleventh hour, and we are now debating them, no doubt with a move to resolve this legislation as a matter of urgency at some point in the near future. In terms of committee inquiries into this legislation, only one hearing was held. A great many submissions were made with regard to this legislation, and I had a bit of a look through the submissions from the various stakeholder groups and experts around the concerns they have. Some expressed support for some elements of the legislation; others had concerns that were far-ranging. One hearing to deal with the multitude of issues that have been raised? Again, it's not just some simple piece of legislation that relates to any other ordinary, everyday piece of business—this is a set of laws that relates to the protection and the preservation of the family unit. That's why I'm concerned to hear that there was only one committee hearing in relation to this legislation. As Senator O'Sullivan said in his contribution, the joint select committee which operated in the last parliament over an extended period conducted—albeit on a broader range of issues—13 hearings, which sounds more befitting of something as serious as family law and related matters. I suspect that the proponents and supporters of that joint select inquiry had the view that it was an important area of law and, therefore, we need to make sure that what we do in this space we get absolutely right. The responses in the legislation we have before us go beyond the recommendations that have been made by previous inquiries and reviews, as we already know. Many of them aren't supported by the profession. I know there are mixed and varied views around the legal profession, but I tell you what—in terms of the operation of the legal system and the laws that relate to particular areas, including family law, I would be taking the advice there. The fact that the profession have indicated that they are, in some cases, not supportive of what's proposed here needs to be taken absolutely seriously. As I've mentioned already, there may be unintended consequences of serious legislative proposals that haven't been road-tested in the community. We don't know what consequences might flow from them. These are sensitive and serious matters relating to some of the most vulnerable people in our community at the most distressing point in their lives. Amendments to these bills were circulated on the last business day after close of business, and as the first order of business in the Senate this morning we are dealing with these amendments in a cognate debate on the bills, which is very concerning. What could possibly go wrong? To that end, I'll look at some of the issues that have been raised and need to be considered. As we know, there is a list of primary considerations and additional considerations to be considered by the court in relation to the best interests of the child. The removal of the term 'meaningful' with regard to a relationship is immensely concerning. A 'relationship', as a definition, could mean very little. It sounds very much like a tick-a-box type of approach to a link between a child and an individual. 'Meaningful' has the characteristic of some familial relationship where there is a strong bond, a respect, a love and a desire and willingness to protect. It is something that is linked to the family unit. The removal of that terminology is something that many experts and many submitters, including the Law Council of Australia, have expressly raised as an issue that should be corrected. The fact that we are moving away from that is something we look at as a retrograde step. I think also the starting points around the parenting framework—ensuring that children have the benefit of both of their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives, when in the best interests of the child; protecting children from abuse, neglect and family violence; ensuring children receive adequate and proper parenting; and ensuring that parents fulfil their duties and meet their responsibilities—are not controversial, and neither are the general principles that underlie those objects that need to be considered. Obviously, the materials that relate to the system—the various supporting documents, such as the 91-page explanatory memorandum about amending this legislation—which I think everyone agrees need to be simple, clear and straightforward, are not something that families who are going through family break-up, particularly in highly distressing situations, are going to be looking at in any depth or at all when they want to get the best outcome for themselves and, importantly, for their children. There are a range of measures there, which I know colleagues have spoken about at length. They include, as the shadow Attorney-General has said, the presumption of shared parental responsibility as a starting point for negotiations. The ALRC made the point that that should be retained as a starting point. That doesn't translate directly into shared custody. I've raised a number of concerns here. Amendments have been circulated at the eleventh hour. Here we are rushing the debate. It's very concerning, and we need to make sure we get it right. 12:03 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania Like my colleague Senator Duniam, I rise to speak on the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 and the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023. I'd like to associate myself with some of the comments that my colleague Senator Duniam made in his contribution, which I was keeping an ear out for. One of the most important jobs we have in this place, with some of the greatest impact, is setting the rules, boundaries and parameters by and within which our family law system operates. This is something that impacts on a huge number of Australians. Whether or not they end up having an interaction with the family law system, just knowing that that system is robust and will look after the interests of all parties involved, particularly the interests of children, in a careful, considered and appropriate way is fundamentally very important, and it is part of our role to undertake that consideration. The Senate, as we know—as we often talk about in this place—is also a chamber of scrutiny. It is our job to ask questions about how any piece of legislation will impact upon the lives of Australians, and we have several ways of doing that. One of those ways is through the Committee of the Whole process in this chamber, and I'm sure that we will be having a lengthy Committee of the Whole process for this legislation that we are speaking about here today, given the concerns that have been raised by a number of my colleagues. We also have the Senate standing committee review process, which is when legislation is sent off to committees for review, as this legislation was. It was sent to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which is deputy-chaired by my friend Senator Paul Scarr, who's in the chamber right now. I was quite shocked and surprised to hear that, for these significant changes to our family law system in this country, that committee was in a position to conduct only one hearing into this legislation. I'm sure it was not by any fault of my friend and colleague Senator Scarr. This is not a simple piece of legislation. There were many, many submissions to that Senate inquiry. I think it is disappointing that that committee was only able to find the time to conduct one hearing. I would have liked to see some further scrutiny placed over this bill. But, as we know, our Senate standing committees are controlled by members of the government, so I will just leave colleagues with that thought for a moment. But there is no doubt, as I've said, that the family law arena is a very important and complex area of the law. We know that, every year, tens of thousands of Australians will find themselves going through the pain and the sadness of a family separation. While a small proportion of these cases are ultimately decided by our family law courts, there are still a very large number of Australian families going through what can be a very traumatic and difficult process. As I said, knowing that the laws that can deal with these issues—whether it's at the very worst end of the spectrum, where the court does have to become involved, or, indeed, leading up to that—are robust and appropriate is important. Where families with children are involved, we must ensure that the best interests and particularly the welfare of those children are at all times prioritised by our family law system. In the last parliament I sat on a select committee that was established by the parliament that specifically looked at Australia's family law system in a very holistic way. It was a long-running and long-reaching committee inquiry. Given that it had such a broad scope, we heard from numerous witnesses that appeared at committee hearings, some of which were right at the start of the pandemic and others of which had to continue on online, as the case was, as we went through that process. We heard from many witnesses. We had many thousands of submissions, some of which are on the public record and some of which were confidential. From reading those submissions and hearing the words from people who had been directly impacted by our family law system, there is no doubt in my mind that, when people are dealing with family separation, for the overwhelming majority of them, that is one of the worst experiences that they will go through in their lives. Again, Australians deserve to know that their family law system is operating in a way that can help and protect them and deal with the competing interests in a fair and reasonable way when they have to go through that process. Keeping that in mind, we have to remember that if we're going to tamper with those laws, as legislators in this place, or if we're going to update or change those laws, that we have a responsibility to scrutinise those changes appropriately. The coalition does welcome and supports a number of the measures that have been presented in these bills which we're debating here concurrently today, particularly those in the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023. That said, we do have concerns that other measures in the bill have not necessarily been supported by all stakeholders, are untested and, therefore, potentially could have unintended consequences and effects. I'll go into some of these issues in a moment. But, again, it goes back to this question: how are we, in this place, appropriately scrutinising legislative change, particularly in a sensitive area of the law and particularly in an area of the law that, when it does impact upon Australians, does so when they're at their lowest ebb? That's what I learnt from my time on the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System during the last parliament. People are at their lowest ebb when they're dealing with our family law system, so we need to know that when we change the laws around that system we're giving due consideration to all of the consequences. As I said, the coalition does have some concerns about the consequences of some of the changes that we're debating here today. One concern that has been raised by stakeholders, including the Law Council of Australia, is the change to the list of considerations for the court with regard to parenting decisions. Currently, the court is required to consider the benefit of a child being able to have a 'meaningful' relationship with parents and other people who are significant to the child, where it is safe to do so. This bill that we're debating here today removes the word 'meaningful' from that consideration, so that it would require the court to consider only the benefit of the child having 'a relationship' with parents and other significant family members. There is, of course, a large difference between having 'a' meaningful relationship and a 'relationship' with anybody, because 'a' relationship could be a very irregular or rudimentary form of contact. I don't think you need to be a legal expert to figure that out. If you remove the word 'meaningful' it does, to an extent, reduce the threshold that might be required to establish whether or not such a relationship exists. The Law Council expressly raised this as an issue which needs to be corrected, and the coalition certainly agrees with this concern. As I mentioned earlier in my contribution, the safety of children must be the highest priority when we're dealing with our family law system and when we seek to change the legislation that underpins that system. We have to have the safety of children in mind as our highest priority. We're unsure why the simplified list of factors for consideration in this bill does not require the court to consider existing family violence orders and the basis upon which they were made. It seems that the bill would have been a good opportunity to make that a requirement, given how relevant any existing family violence orders and the circumstances of those orders should be to the considerations of the court. Clearly of course, those factors would be considered closely by the court, but they're absolutely fundamental to these decisions. On face value, it seems that they should be a required consideration. It's one thing to say, 'Well, of course, any reasonable court, any reasonable judge or any reasonable lawyer would take these considerations into account—they would consider existing family violence orders.' But why not make that a requirement? Again, through the inquiry that was conducted in the last parliament, it was evident to me that once there were family violence orders involved in a family law dispute, they added an extra layer of complexity to the situation and—certainly, I think—increased the likelihood that the family separation would end up going through the court system. So there are very good and sensible reasons for that, but why shouldn't that be a requirement of the court? We also note that concern has been raised by some in the family law profession that the government's simplified list risks overlooking a number of important factors. It's been expressed by some that guidance could have been included specifying factors to be considered, including the child's maturity or level of understanding; whether a parent has been engaged in parenting in the past—including their obligations to maintain a child financially; the likely impact of any change in circumstances; and the practicalities of any arrangement. Once again, of course the courts are likely to consider some or all of these factors, where they're relevant, but the concern is that if we aren't providing suitable guidance within the legislation specifying that these matters should be considered, they may not always be prioritised properly. Similarly, the bill cuts the objectives and principles of the parenting framework in the Family Law Act. It repeals the objects and principles that have guided families and courts for many years which are set out in section 60B of the act. The explanatory memorandum says that despite appearances to the contrary, the intention is not to lose these objects and principles. If that's the case, why take them out to start with? The problem is that in seeking to simplify it, though, taking some of these objects and principles out of the act does risk sending the message that the priority has changed in regard to those objects. As the act stands currently, the intent of the parliament is clear. It makes clear that the parenting framework intends to ensure that children have the benefit of both of their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives, where it's in the best interests of the child to do so; to protect children from abuse, neglect and family violence; to ensure children receive adequate and proper parenting; and to ensure that parents fulfil their duties and meet their responsibilities. Those are four very simple and straightforward points that I don't think any fair-minded Australian would disagree with—that we need to have consideration of these things when considering the operation of a parenting framework. These things are not controversial and they should continue to be central to our Family Law Act. If all those objects and other principles are still relevant—and, to be fair, the Attorney-General's explanatory memorandum says that they are—why then are we removing them from the relevant legislation with this bill? It does seem counterintuitive to remove them from the act just in the name of simplification. I think we should seek to simplify things when they're overly complex, and when simplifying them serves a purpose. But those four principles that I read out are not complicated. Like I said, they're principles that most fair-minded Australians would agree should be considered within our family law system. It just seems somewhat nonsensical to seek to remove them at this point. Just in summary: many of the changes in the family law amendment bills that we're debating here today were made with good intentions; we recognise that, we support some of the changes that are in the bills and we join with the government in recognising that many of the issues that these bills seek to address are problems that need a solution. Like I said, I spent a lot of time on the family law committee in the last parliament and I don't think that anybody in this place would think that our family law system is perfect. But in too many places the proposals that are being put forward by the government in these bills do not align with those problems. They go beyond recommendations made by previous reviews, they aren't supported by the legal profession, they have unintended consequences and, in many cases, they haven't been road tested on the ground. The coalition's very real concern is that although we join with the government in recognising these problems, the solutions in these bills are actually going to make things worse for Australian families. We cannot afford for our family law system to make things worse for Australian families. As I said in my very first moments of this contribution, that's something that we, as legislators, should be very cautious about, particularly when we're dealing with a system that's meant to guide families through some of the most difficult parts of their lives. 12:19 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I rise to make my contribution to the debate on the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 and the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023. I'll first say thank you to those who participated in the Senate inquiry, and particularly to my colleague Senator Scarr for the work that he did on the additional comments that have been made by the coalition in that report process. It is extremely important that this debate be conducted in the finest traditions of this place, because this legislation goes to the heart of what is happening in our communities. It goes to our families. We would all prefer that there weren't arguments, disputes, concerns, within family units, but, as a part of this debate, we're acknowledging and we're realising that, sadly, that is a reality. So we are dealing with the realities of family life and the issues that occur through human frailties, and I come to this debate not as someone who's a lawyer or who has training in the law but as a member of the parliament who sits down with families—sometimes fathers, sometimes mothers, sometimes grandparents—who are trying to navigate their way through what is for them a complex legal system but has the overlay of high emotion. One of the real difficulties is that, when you are in a highly emotional state, it's difficult to make rational decisions. Your emotions take over. And so, for this parliament to ensure that there is a sound set of guiding principles that families can look to when going through the unfortunate moments of family breakdown and family breakup, they can apply those principles to that process. Now, with apologies to all the lawyers out there, it is best if families don't need a lawyer to get involved and can come to an agreed solution to their circumstance, bearing in mind that, particularly in the circumstance where there are children involved, this is a lifelong thing. This is a lifelong circumstance that they have to deal with. There wouldn't be too many families in the country that aren't touched by it. I recall a discussion back in 2003, when the last major consideration of family law was undertaken, and the process that this parliament went through with the committee, chaired by former member Kay Hull, to look at all of the issues and to bring forward to the parliament a process of solution. In that circumstance, fortunately, we had cross-parliament agreement on the outcome. The last thing that we need in this space is for it to become an issue that's divided around partisan political lines. We need to come together as a parliament to provide an agreed, sensible solution that provides appropriate guidance to Australians who are dealing with these matters, even if they don't have to involve the legal profession. That's why I made the points that I did about the work with Senator Scarr and the coalition's comments in relation to the committee, because it's important that we soundly and sensibly work through the concerns that the coalition still has with the legislation as it stands and the guidance that it provides to families even if they don't require the services of the legal system to make their decisions, because they do look to the law. They do look to the law and they look to the principles of the law in making their decisions. We shouldn't forget the extended families, as I said earlier. I've sat down on a number of occasions with grandparents who are looking after and raising their grandchildren and dealing with the difficulties, and I've spoken to grandparents who don't, for some reason, have access to their grandchildren, which prevents those children, who sit at the heart of what we're talking about today, from having their full family experience. If there are sound and good reasons that they don't have access to grandparents on either side, that should be appropriately reflected in this legislation. There are a couple of things about some of the solutions that the government has put forward in this bill that the coalition are concerned will actually make things worse, particularly in the context of meaningful relationships and how those are defined and the removal of or changes in those provisions in the legislation. Understanding what children are looking for—understanding their perspectives and their capacity to make their own decisions—is really important. But, as I've said a couple of times, whether or not families are using the legal system to resolve their issues, they look to what the law says as guidance, because, if it progresses to the stage where they do need to go to the law, they're already on the path. So the guidance that we give them through this parliament, in that sense, becomes extremely important, and it's incumbent on us to come to a sensible agreement on that. This cannot be a matter of partisan divide. We don't want to be inserting our fight into the concerns that might sit within a family. They've got enough to deal with. We need to get this right, we need to do it cooperatively, and we need to work together to ensure that actions that occur are done appropriately. We should listen to the professionals who are providing us with advice on that. The court considering the benefits of meaningful relationships therefore becomes very important. If the Law Council of Australia expresses this as a concern, I think we should listen. Likewise, arrangements that promote safety should be considered as a part of the process. As we listen to the children, we should be prepared to provide some guidance to families about the children's maturity, level of understanding and capacity to make appropriate decisions. There are a whole series of factors there that can be appropriately looked at and considered, such as whether a parent has been engaged in parenting in the past, including their obligations to financially support the child. We as a coalition are extremely concerned about provisions of the bill that significantly cut the objects and principles of the parenting framework in the act. As I said, families look to the legislation for guidance. They are not going to look back to a previous piece of legislation because of a referral in the act or an explanatory memorandum; they're going to look at what is in the law, so what we consider as a part of that is really important. We need to ensure that the appropriate levels of guidance to support families in their decision-making are considered in the act. We should look at it carefully and clearly. But those things that are in those provisions now that remain relevant should stay in the act so that families can find them easily, so they can look to them. Let's remember, people are often quite emotional in these circumstances. It's a difficult time, and the best possible guidance to them that we can provide is what we should be doing. They need to be found easily, where people can find them, where people can read them so that they can apply them. One of the more important elements of the 2003 changes was the presumption of shared responsibility. Clearly, there have been some issues with that. Clearly, there have been some ways that it's been interpreted. But ensuring that parents take the appropriate level of responsibility in raising their children in the various ways that might apply is an extremely important principle. Rather than removing that presumption or that element of the act—because it was quite transformational when it came into effect—if it requires clarification, then that's what we should do. We shouldn't take it away; we should clarify it appropriately because, as I've said before, people look to the act. Let's not forget that this provision was put into the act in a bipartisan way in the best possible way that it could be for this type of legislation, which I've said a number of times goes to the absolute heart of our community—to our families. In whatever form you might see your family, and I don't presume to put any overlay on that because the world has so changed in the last 20 years, if there's going to be a separation, our sincerest responsibility is to work closely together to provide the best possible guidance to people in our communities who are having to deal with this. It's a difficult time in their lives and it can define people for a long time, but our role is to ensure that we do our best possible job. We retain the elements that we know are of value and if we need to improve parts of the legislation—the definitions or the guidance—that's what we should do. We shouldn't be taking things out wholesale, particularly things that were important parts of previous reforms for very, very good reason. I thank colleagues for their indulgence during my presentation. 12:34 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia The coalition welcomes the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill and it's the focus of my contribution. This bill builds on the work identified by the coalition in its time in government to better support families through challenging times by ensuring that family courts have the information they need when making orders in parenting matters. This change can actually make a difference to families who, unfortunately, through family breakdown, need to go through the family law system for an outcome, noting not all separations require court intervention. We know that parental separation affects 50,000 to 60,000 children in Australia each year. Separation, of itself, is painful and difficult, but when it involves children in dispute, that pain and complexity is elevated. The court system is complex and, yes, we can do better. In 2020-21, there were nearly 50,000 divorce filings and nearly 22,000 interim order filings. Interim orders are temporary orders that are put in place until final orders are made by the court. In 2021, 50.3 per cent of family law applications related specifically to matters concerning children. The likelihood is that if a family matter has reached the courts, the relationship between the child's parents is already a difficult one. As shadow minister for child protection and the prevention of family violence, I hear often of issues that impact child protection and family law. I'm pleased that this bill will address some of these issues. In the 2019-20 budget, the coalition provided funding to enable the co-location of state and territory family-safety officials in family courts to improve information sharing between the family law, family violence and child protection systems. In my many conversations with the family violence and child protection sector, with workers on the front line and with families, people often talk about the positive change that has occurred from the co-location of these services in the family law courts. The Australian Law Reform Commission handed down its report Family law for the future, and the coalition agreed with the recommendation to implement a national information-sharing framework. Far too many family law disputes involve family violence, and we are all too aware of the devastating and long-term impact family violence can have. We know that an estimated 11 per cent of all Australian adults, or over two million people, have experienced violence from a partner. Children, unfortunately, are often less visible but, nonetheless, they also experience violence and trauma as witnesses and as victims. It is a massive problem that is growing at an alarming rate, and it exposes the need for even more responses that support those concerned about escalating behaviour and those who already use violence, to help them prevent escalation. The National Framework to End Violence Against Women and Children 2022-23 and its associated action plans must ensure prevention and early intervention are giving appropriate attention to men, women and children if the framework is to deliver on its target of ending violence within a generation. For that to happen, when family members identify their behaviours are not safe or when perpetrators reach out for help, help needs to be there for them. It must be timely, it must be responsive and it must be appropriate for their needs. These are sensitive issues, but we must make it easier for people to reach out. If we did that, it would mean prevention and early intervention that was timely and responsive would serve them better. Doing that better might also avoid the disruption, harm and trauma that come with experiencing violence, which in turn might just mean fewer people experiencing separation and/or heading to the courts. Timely information is important. We know all too well that, when a family is off to the courts, the situation can change quickly as their family law matter progresses through the courts. Information that was put before the courts, say, six months ago might not be the information the court needs to make the best possible orders today. For instance, if family violence has escalated or other matters around child protection arise, the court needs to know that the situation has changed in order to make a good decision for the entire family. Single Mother Families Australia and the Council of Single Mothers and their Children told the committee looking into this legislation that, indeed, the lack of shared information has been an impediment to both good court processes and workable, fair parenting orders. The National Children's Commissioner hopes this bill will allow the Family Court to be better placed to consider comprehensively and holistically what is in the child's best interests, based on information relating to a child's individual needs and circumstances. The national information-sharing framework was intended to guide the sharing of information between the family law, family violence and child protection systems. The timely sharing of critical information about the safety, welfare and wellbeing of families and children can indeed keep people safe. That work progressed in partnership with all jurisdictions through the Standing Council of Attorneys-General and its successor bodies. In November 2021, all jurisdictions endorsed the National Strategic Framework for Information Sharing between the Family Law and Family Violence and Child Protection Systems. One of the features of the national framework was a shift away from subpoenas issued by the parties to a family law dispute. It had one very simple objective: … to promote the safety and wellbeing of adults and children affected by family violence, child abuse and neglect, and support informed and appropriate decision-making in circumstances where there is, or may be, a risk of family violence, child abuse, or neglect. The framework moved towards targeted requests for information and court initiated orders. Rather than relying on parties to issue subpoenas, the framework was intended to empower courts to access family safety information. The national framework envisaged that a broad range of state and territory agencies would be information-sharing agencies. It expressly included state and territory child protection or child welfare departments, state and territory policing agencies and firearms registries. But it also envisaged flexibility to include other bodies into the future. This could mean that Corrections, Youth Justice and even non-government organisations such as specialist family violence services could participate. The former coalition government intended to give effect to a very simple principle: if a person's safety is a concern in court proceedings, all relevant information should be before the court to ensure decision-making is fully informed. Imagine that. Imagine a system where information-sharing was the norm, not the exception—a system that truly protected and cared for the parties involved in family disputes. This bill achieves four main things. The first achievement of this bill is to introduce two different types of information-sharing orders: the short-form order, which is called an order for particulars, and an order to produce these documents or information. These provisions replace the existing, more limited information-sharing provision in the Family Law Act. Secondly, the bill allows the family law courts to obtain a broader range of information than is possible under existing information-sharing arrangements. This recognises that family violence and child abuse and neglect are complex and can take a number of different forms, and that they can impact children, even if not directed at them. The Family Court should not be unduly limited in the information it can take into account when making parenting orders. Thirdly, the bill expressly outlines legal exclusions to information-sharing, such as documents that are privileged or information that would endanger a person if disclosed. Fourthly, it restricts the issue of subpoenas without leave of the court. The bill says that if an information-sharing order requires the production of documents, a party can only issue a subpoena with leave. This is intended to reduce duplication and avoid the cost and time associated with subpoena processes. The bill will rely heavily on regulations to prescribe state and territory bodies as information-sharing agencies, and those agencies can be directed to produce information. The regulations will also create rules around the production, storage, disclosure and disposal of information in line with the national information-sharing framework. I acknowledge the sector contribution that has gone into informing the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill. A lot of their work has contributed to this bill. This bill does make sense. This bill is a welcome development. 12:45 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I rise to speak on the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 and the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023 in the debate here today. I know as a senator for over nine years and through my electorate office and also my involvement in various committees that there are few things in life and in our jobs as MPs that cause the same difficulties and complexities for families and result in consideration here in the parliament and in our offices than family law. It's a fact that every year tens of thousands of Australians find themselves going through the pain and sadness of separation. All too often the cases that are not more readily resolved are the ones that come through our doors. Certainly they are ones where the children inevitably suffer the most. In a small proportion of these cases disputes will be decided by a judge in Australia's family law courts. I think all in this chamber agree that we as a nation should aim for a system that resolves as many of these disputes as possible as quickly and as cleanly as possible in the circumstances and that where children are involved we must at all times prioritise their interests. Some of my colleagues have already articulated that there are a number of measures in these bills that are very welcome, particularly in the information-sharing bill. Many of the bills we have seen come through this place in the last nearly 18 months from the Labor Party had been done without sufficient consultation and, even where consultation was done and Senate committees were given an appropriate amount of time to reflect on the bills that came before this place and how to improve them, the Labor Party simply dismissed and discarded those concerns. We have seen a litany of those come through in recent times—everything from organ tissue donations to, more recently, pharmacists and industrial relations. Unfortunately, the pattern for the Labor Party now has been to treat almost all bills that come through here a bit like ambit claims for the trade union movement. That is certainly the tactic they've employed time and time here in this place. Sadly, the consequence of ramming things through with the support of the crossbench and the Greens, is that the legislation is all the poorer for it. In this case it will have significant outcomes for families going through one of the most stressful and traumatising circumstances in their life. Many changes in the Family Law Amendment Bill are based on good intentions. We join the government in recognising that many of the problems this bill seeks to address are in need of solutions, but yet again, as I said, in too many places the proposals put forward by the government do not align with the actual problems they are seeking to address. As a number of my colleagues have mentioned, they go beyond recommendations made by previous reviews, they are not supported by the legal profession, they have unintended consequences or they have not been road-tested with community organisations who day in and day out deal with these most challenging issues. The coalition have grave concerns. Although we join with the government—as we always have, whether we are in government or opposition, taken a very bipartisan approach to this—the solutions in this legislation are untested. Sadly, we believe that many of the changes will actually inadvertently—I've no doubt—make things worse for Australian families. I also acknowledge my colleague Senator Paul Scarr, who just entered this place, for the work he has done personally on this bill and for what he has noted on this. He has been incredibly productive and insightful. It's a shame that the government hasn't taken a lot of these concerns seriously. I recall that, when the last major reforms went through in both places, there was a very bipartisan approach to this type of legislation. There were many Labor luminaries on the review at the time under John Howard, and there was much greater consideration and consultation with the legal profession and organisations and across the chamber at the time. I think this bill is all the worse for it. In my remarks today I will focus on part 1 of schedule 1, which is the objectives and principles of the parenting framework. Schedule 1 of the bill drastically cuts the objects and principles of the parenting framework in the Family Law Act. That is not necessarily a bad thing, because it is complex, long and hard to interpret. In itself, it repeals objects and principles that have guided families and also courts and mediators for many years, and they're set out in section 60B of the act. The explanatory memorandum to this bill says it all. Despite appearances to the contrary, the intention is not to lose the objects and principles, but, clearly, that's what it actually does. The explanatory memorandum says: The repeal and substitution of section 60B does not indicate that the repealed objects and principles are no longer relevant. Clearly, it's saying that they should still be relevant. The EM continues: Rather, the intention is to simplify the objects to better assist with the interpretation of Part VII and avoid duplication with section 60CC which sets out what the court must consider when determining what is in the best interests of the child. Clearly, the intent is still there. The problem—there are several—in particular is the message that this repeal sends, particularly when viewed as a larger part of the changes in schedule 1. As the act currently stands, the intent of the parliament is crystal clear. Summarised, it says that the parenting framework intends to ensure that children have the benefit of both of their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives where, of course, it is in the best interests of the child to do so. The parenting framework is also intended to protect children from abuse, neglect and family violence. It's also designed to ensure that children receive adequate and proper parenting and that parents fulfil their own duties and responsibilities to meet these requirements. These things currently in the act are not controversial. They were formed in a spirit of bipartisanship, and as principles they remain supported by both sides of politics. There are also some general principles that underlie these objectives. These actually say that, where it's not contrary to the best interests of a child, children have a right to know and be cared for by both of their parents; children have a right to spend time and communicate with their parents and others who are significant, such as their grandparents and other relatives; parents jointly share duties and responsibilities for raising their children; parents should agree about the parenting of their children; and children have a right to enjoy their culture. Again, these principles are not controversial, and they were not when they were implemented under the Howard government. The Attorney-General's own explanatory memorandum says that they are still relevant. Here is the crux of the problem from the coalition's point of view. If they are still relevant they should remain in the bill. If they are truly still important to the government, you don't take them out and make a reference in the explanatory memorandum, which, over time, gets completely lost. Certainly, people involved in mediations and people involved in court cases will not be going back to obscure explanatory memorandums in this place. They will be looking at the act itself. So, the risk is that, when this is read in conjunction with other changes to the bill, the overwhelming message is that the parliament is reversing its support for principles that have successfully guided tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of parents. At law, the words in the explanatory memorandum will be used to determine the meaning of the law only if a provision is ambiguous or obscure, or if the ordinary meaning of the words of the statute leads to a result that is manifestly absurd or unreasonable. We all know this in this place, and it is the subject of a lot of debate over many bills and explanatory memoranda. But I keep coming back to the main principle: if those principles are so important—and they are, and we all agree they are—they should stay in the bill. It is not yet too late to make amendments to ensure that those principles are in the bill, to send and to keep sending that clear message to jurists, to families and to mediators that those are the guiding principles. And, as I've said, certainly none of them will have the need or even the knowledge to go diving for a 91-page explanatory memorandum, in which this is buried somewhere in the middle. Most families, fortunately, will never go to court, but they will make decisions in the shadow of the law. If this is no longer the law of the land, then it is very, very clear that there will be turmoil, pain and far more fractious than necessary relationship management issues in and out of the courts. Part 2 of schedule 1, which I believe is the most significant part of schedule 1, would repeal the presumption of equal, shared parental responsibility. In part 1, which I've just discussed, it starts to make more sense as to why they've taken those principles out. And I'll just repeat: the most significant part of schedule 1 would repeal the presumption of equal, shared parental responsibility that applies when courts make orders. The history of this is incredibly important. The introduction of that presumption was a triumph of bipartisanship and sensible reform for families. If you applied the commonsense test, any and all Australians would absolutely believe in the presumption of equal, shared responsibility as a starting point in any family law matters when courts are making parenting orders. Prior to 2003 there was widespread concern about how courts dealt with contact and residency issues for children when a marriage broke down. The way courts approached those issues before left many parents feeling excluded from their child's lives after separation. Certainly those of us who were either in politics or working in electorate offices at the time knew just how fractious and how incredibly difficult it was for one parent or the other to be excluded from their child's lives and from having access. Against that backdrop, which many of us here will remember, Prime Minister Howard commissioned an inquiry into the family law system, chaired by Kay Hull AO, which resulted in the landmark report Every picture tells astory. The report was, quite simply, remarkable, and its recommendations were unanimous and bipartisan. It involved a roll call of senior Labor MPs, and they all joined coalition members of the committee to work through this issue over a number of years. Unfortunately for families who are currently going through family breakdown and for those who will in the future, this bill removes many of those important guardrails that were introduced in 2006. The Australian Law Reform Commission, at the initiative of the former coalition government, did not recommend such a removal—for very good reason. The ALRC said it supported the idea that a presumption of shared parental responsibility serves as a great starting point for negotiations between parents and recommended that the concept be retained. I don't think any normal and sensible Australian would ever disagree that that was the right approach. In conclusion, Labor's amendments go much further than has been recommended and than I believe any reasonable Australian would want. For those reasons, I call on the Labor Party to consider amendments. It is not too late. 13:00 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I, too, rise to make some remarks on the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023, and I commend the comments from my colleague Senator Reynolds and, particularly, Senator Scarr, who was on the committee that reviewed this. Having been in the other place—the House of Representatives—from 2004 to 2007, as well as here in the Senate, whilst much of my work has focused around national security issues, there is no issue that I have dealt with in my time in this place that has more significantly affected people, caused so much financial, mental, emotional and relational pain—often abuse—or caused people to engage out of desperation and hurt with their elected representatives seeking remedy. I have known Kay Hull well, and the work that she did back in 2003. I came in just at the end of that committee inquiry, but was here during the period where then Attorney-General Ruddock was implementing a lot of the reforms into family law. There is no topic that is more complex because of its interaction with human nature, relationships and emotions than this area, and it is one that has to be dealt with effectively and compassionately, but also in a time frame that makes sure changes that we make actually deliver the outcomes that will improve things. My experience to date has said that there is no silver bullet. There is no change that is going to make everything good for everyone overnight, but at least we should be incrementally improving the system that we have. One of my concerns with this legislation, and one of the reasons that I will be calling on both the government and the crossbench to give serious consideration to the amendments that are being moved by Senator Cash, is that the hearing for this lasted one day. That's one day for a topic that, through my time here in the House and in the Senate, there have been extended inquiries giving people the opportunity to not just have their views heard but also, when draft legislation has come forward, have the opportunity to delve into. Will it be effective and, importantly, will there be unintended consequences? Will this lead to outcomes that actually take us backward, that make the situations for both parents and, particularly, children even worse than they currently are? I am appalled—it would not be too strong a word to use—that the committee was given only one day to engage with stakeholders, whether they be in the legal profession or otherwise, around this legislation. I think that is a manifestly inadequate period to understand the likely efficacy and the potential for unintended consequences of this. So I encourage people to consider seriously the amendments put forward by Senator Cash—not treating them as a partisan issue but as a genuine attempt to make sure that we keep moving forward and improving legislation, as opposed to potentially going backwards. There are two areas that I wish to talk about: schedule 1 part 2, which is around the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility; and schedule 2, regarding the enforcement of child-related orders. They are two issues that, through my time—particularly as a member of the House of Representatives—have been raised with me frequently. Certainly, schedule 2—the enforcement of child-related orders—is something that people have continued to bring to my attention because of the great financial, emotional and other impacts on them when those child-related orders are not enforced and there are imbalances of power in the relationship. It's a problematic area. Before I go into those in detail, though, I do wish to give some overarching comments about how we, as a society, address this issue. I mentioned that I came in at the end of Kay Hull's work, and one of the things that led to that review back at that period was the concern about the disappearance of fathers from their children's lives in the aftermath of separation and divorce. That drove a fair degree of interest. Interestingly, I'll go to President Obama, who's not someone I quote often because he comes from a different political view, perhaps, to mine. I'll quote from a speech that he gave: Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives, we are reminded today that family is the most important. And we are called to recognize and honor how critical every father is to that foundation. They are teachers and coaches. They are mentors and role models. They are examples of success and the men who constantly push us toward it. But if we are honest with ourselves, we'll admit that what too many fathers also are is missing—missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it. I think that's a realistic assessment of two things. One is that there's a role for both parents, but that both parents have to step up to that role and fulfil it. One of the challenges that we see now with the degree of dysfunction in families is that many young men have not had role models. They have not seen in their own lives an example of what it means to be a father. So one of the things we should be saying as a society is: how do we get alongside and help people to understand how to be a father—in fact, how to be a husband? How do you communicate? How do you relate and have an emotional EQ as well as an IQ, a work ethic and all those other things? This never comes cheap. But I think it's worth noting some of the research that highlights the mental health issues, which are doubled for divorced men and women as opposed to those who remain married, and the high, and rising, rate of suicide following marriage breakdown. Divorced women have taken their lives at a rate four times that for married women, while the rate is up to three times for men. Financially, AMP and NATSEM have highlighted the different impacts after a marriage comes apart. They've said that, whether it's income equity, debt levels or long-term wealth potential from a financial perspective, divorce is a loss-loss outcome. Why should government care, even if we set apart the fact that we want people to flourish and that we want wellbeing amongst our community? From a purely financial perspective, back in 2004 when I first started to get into this, some of the research that I looked at from the then Department of Family and Community Services indicated that, on average, a marriage breakdown for an average family with two children equalled $352 million each year in additional support by the taxpayer writ large to families who had suffered breakdown. I notice that in 2014—10 years later—News Corp had done a study, and their assessment was that divorce was costing the economy $14 billion a year. So even from a crass financial perspective, there's a real incentive for government to work out how we can do better to support people who've come together in marriage not to go down the path of seeing that break apart—to find ways to stop that. There are things that have been tried. During the period when Mr Ruddock was the Attorney-General, I was involved with him in seeking to shape not just the establishment of what was coming out of various reviews—Professor Patrick Parkinson had a large hand in that—but the family relationship centres, which were designed initially to make the process of separating less confrontational, with less angst, to allow people to go their separate ways without that impact on them and their children. Three of the first areas that eventually became part of their aim was to help couples about to be married to get information on premarriage education; to help families wanting to improve their relationships to get information about family relationship education and other services that can help strengthen relationships; and to help families having relationship difficulties to get information on and referrals to other services to help prevent separation. The rest of it was all the postseparation part. I'm not convinced that was ever funded as well as it could or should have been. We see examples in other governments, such as in New Zealand, where then finance minister Bill English set up, along with their tax working group and their capital markets working group, a welfare working group in 2008 to do a detailed analysis of why the government was spending large amounts of money to support people through various streams, such as mental health, education, the prison system et cetera. Family breakdown was a key precursor to much of that expenditure, and they put in place some interventions. What it says to me is that there are some ways in which it is worth it for the government to spend money upfront to help people to appreciate the work of people like Gottman, who developed the cascade theory of marital dissolution. He concluded that a lasting marriage results from a couple's ability to resolve the conflicts that are inevitable in any relationship. This comes down to two things: (1) having the desire, the motivation, to do it—so understanding why it's important—and (2) having the tools to do it. I would argue that it is worth it for the Commonwealth to spend money on that. Very quickly, I will move on to the two parts that are of concern. One is about the presumption of equal shared parenting responsibility. I have looked through the long list of recommendations that came out of the Law Reform Commission's work on this. They noted that there was a lack of understanding on the part of many people. The expectation of some going into this whole process of separating was that there should be equal time, and that was causing problems. But what we see was that the original presumption was something that was supported by all sides of Australian politics because of the importance of having both parents in the life of a child. I understand that relabelling, and there are various words that have been used. I look through some of the submissions that were given to the committee and to other processes. Professor Bruce Smyth, for example, stated that there is 'still a role for law to send out a radiating message that both parents matter, and that children need both their parents to be involved in their lives after separation'. A number of witnesses highlighted that, in attempting to implement the recommendation of the ALRC, these changes, rather than rebadging the presumption, basically remove it. There is so much evidence here in Australia and overseas that this presumption is in a child's best interests, all things being equal—obviously not in situations of violence et cetera, but, even in the laws that were put in place under the Howard government, things like domestic violence and the potential for harm to a child were grounds to not have that equality. So, whilst I'm supportive of the view that we should refine expectations about equal responsibility, which doesn't necessarily mean equal time, what this legislation does is to overreach and go too far. There are many submissions—including from Professor Smyth, the Family Law Practitioners Association of Western Australia, the Hunter Valley Family Law Practitioners Association and the Family Law Practitioners Association of Queensland—highlighting in reasonably lengthy ways their concerns with the fact that this presumption is being removed, and that is something that I do not support. Schedule 2 is about the enforcement of child related orders. This is a complex area because of the interaction between Commonwealth and state jurisdictions, but it is something that we need to act on. Schedule 2, I am not convinced would do it. Even the ACT Bar Association has given evidence again in the committee report highlighting some concerns around this and their conclusion was that, rather than simplifying it, they've actually made it a different complex mess. Those two areas are of particular concern of mine, having dealt with them over a range of years. I implore the Senate to consider the amendments by Senator Cash. 13:15 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales The Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 and Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023 will amend the Family Law Act 1975 with the stated purpose being to make the family law system safer and simpler and to ensure that the best interests of children are placed at its centre. The amendments implement a number of recommendations from the Australian Law Reform Commission's 2019 report into the state of Australia's family law system and elements of the government's response to the 2021 joint select committee inquiry into Australia's family law system. There are nine schedules to the bill, which include the redrafting of provisions to do with the enforcement of parenting orders and the protection of personal information in Family Court proceedings. Schedules 2 to 6—amendments aimed at acknowledging Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander notions of family and kinship; schedule 3—changes to the role of the Independent Children's Lawyer; schedule 4—the introduction of a new harmful proceedings order, a power to prevent a vexatious litigant from filing new applications without first obtaining leave; schedule 5—a regulation-making power with respect to family report writers; and schedule 7. The key amendments are in schedule 1, which amends the legislative framework for making parenting orders, including changes to the section which covers the factors to be considered when making parenting arrangements in the best interests of the child. This schedule also repeals the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility and the mandatory consideration of certain time arrangements for parents. There is a strong focus amongst stakeholders on these amendments, with many supporting them, some suggesting improvements and some raising concerns about their impact. I note that a number of stakeholders, including the Law Council of Australia, emphasised that proper resourcing must follow reform, particularly as several of the proposed reforms may have significant funding implications. The amendments in the bill implement a number of the recommendations, as I noted from the Australian Law Reform Commission's 2019 report into the state of Australia's family law system and of course also in the government response to the 2021 joint select committee. It also makes consequential amendments and minor amendments to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021. I've talked about the structure briefly and the list of nine schedules. Again, schedule 1, which will be my primary focus with my views today, contains amendments to the legislative framework for making parenting orders, including changes which cover the factors to be considered when making parenting arrangements, again, noting this is when it's in the best interests of the child. It's interesting to think about how it can be in the best interests of the child when we're actually repealing the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility and consider it would be in the best interest of a child if both of their parents were fully engaged and responsible for their life outcomes. We need to stop for a moment and consider that nobody when they start a relationship and a family want to end up in separation or divorce or in the Family Court. It is not a happy outcome; nobody plans or aims to end up there. As legislators, we have an obligation to ensure that, when they do, they understand and have clarity on the process and that they don't have to deal with the unintended consequences of decisions that we've made here because we haven't thought through the practical application of the things they will need to deliver based on our decisions. That is in particular with respect to the best interests of the child. Children have very little control on the road to the Family Court, so it's our responsibility to make sure that the time they spend there doesn't damage them, is as short as possible and delivers the best possible outcomes, given the circumstances, for themselves and their family. We also need to consider what the impact of the change from 'a meaningful relationship' to just 'a relationship' will be. Does that include a bad relationship? Does that include a fractured relationship? Does that mean a relationship with occasional contact? If we can't answer these questions, we need to think about what the purpose of this change is—why we are taking this word out. Is it just a word? What is the broader implication of removing this word? What is it that we are trying to make better by taking out the word 'meaningful'? I can't think of anything that would improve in this process—sadly, having been through it myself—by taking out the opportunity for a child to have a meaningful relationship with a parent. We need to consider that sometimes, particularly before a court, the child becomes an unwilling participant in what can become a feud between their parents. We need, as much as possible, to protect children from that. We need to consider all of this, of course, through the appropriate lens relating to family and domestic violence—to consider that it is not just physical but, as we now better understand, about things like coercive control and financial abuse. I do note that the current list of factors is long. As most of us know, if something is long it can often be confusing and complicated. There are two 'primary' considerations and 14 'additional' considerations. The list runs to over three pages and is about 900 words long. That's a lot of information to take in. It can be confusing and difficult for parents and courts, and I agree that it should be simplified. But there are real concerns about the simplified list of considerations that has been proposed by Labor in this bill. The bill does not strike the appropriate balance, especially as it relates to the best interests of the child. It goes too far in its simplification. The wording of the bill is ambiguous, and that is not something that we want or can afford in such a critical and deep-reaching area of family law. Losing the word 'meaningful' is a significant change. It is not just a word. Let me repeat that: it's not just a word. It sends important signals to the court about the type of relationship that is in the best interests of the child. It also sends those signals to the vast majority of separating couples who don't go to court and are not represented by lawyers but who instead make decisions themselves in the shadow of the law. It sends a signal about the quality of the relationship. Supervised visits once a month or once every two months, on a birthday or at Christmas or Easter, every school holidays—are they a meaningful relationship? They may be a relationship, but who do they benefit? It also has deep implications for extended family networks, because the list says the court needs to consider the benefit to the child not just of a relationship with parents but of a relationship with others who are significant to the child. For some children, relationships with their grandparents, aunties, uncles, cousins or step-siblings may be hugely important, and existing meaningful relationships can change to just 'a' relationship. Whether we want to accept it or not, there is damage that comes with that. But the court doesn't need to consider the benefits of a meaningful relationship with those people—only the benefits of 'a' relationship. Bodies like the Law Council of Australia have expressly raised this as an issue that needs to be corrected. It is an oversight in the legislation that should be corrected. In some instances, the most meaningful relationships a child will have are those with grandparents, aunts or uncles. We need to think about that. We need to think about the consequence of the court being required to consider any views expressed about the child and whether they are actually the views of the child. As currently drafted, some could encourage others to coach or pressure a vulnerable child. It creates a scenario where a child is perhaps espousing the views of a particular parent or relative. Concern has been raised by the legal profession, and I expect this is also a concern more broadly in relation to the impacts of the wellbeing of a child, where they may be pressured or feel obliged to become an active participant in a dispute between their parents. A process which began as serving the best interests of the child can become one where a child is impacted or damaged by that same process. The simplified list doesn't require the court to consider existing family violence orders and the basis on which they're made. This is entirely inconsistent with what is in the best interests of the child. If the family home is dangerous or violent, then that is a matter that the court must consider. This is an issue that we in the coalition raised during the committee process. It is not a departure from the existing practice, where things like family violence orders are usually considered, but it is surprising. The failure to include it adds weight to our concerns about the attempts to ram this bill through without any real attempt to scrutinise or negotiate in relation to this piece. It is also worth noting the concern raised by some in the profession that Labor's list risks overlooking a number of important factors. The list doesn't include anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of the child. It's not a cookie-cutter process; there are always extenuating and special circumstances. There is no guidance on the face of the statute about the child's maturity level or their level of understanding; whether a parent has been engaged in parenting in the past, including their obligations to maintain the child financially; the likely impact of any change in circumstances; and the logistical practicalities of any arrangement. These things could be referred to in legislative notes, as some in the profession have suggested. We hope and trust that the courts will be able to take these into account. I listened with great interest to the contribution of Senator Scarr, who raised some very good, well-considered points. I also read his comments on the recent committee report on the bill. One statistic that jumped out at me was that an AIFS study found that 53.7 per cent of parents who used the courts as their resolution pathway in 2014 reported that physical violence was relevant to their situation prior to separation. Let me repeat that: 53.7 per cent said that physical violence was a factor in their situation prior to separating, highlighting the importance of safety and the history of violence in the family home. Yet there is no consideration of this. We're saying to a child that's been subjected to family or domestic violence in their home that when they come to the Family Court it's not something we're going to think about or that we think a court ought to think about in determining what happens to that child. I can't really get my head around how that is in any way, shape or form in the best interests of anybody, but, in particular, of that child. I think there is good intention being displayed in relation to these bills, but it is clear that they need more work. There are some holes here, and these must be addressed before they become law. They must be addressed by us here before they impact any more children unnecessarily. Debate interrupted. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT HZB It being 1.30, I now need to move to two-minute statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 30 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Coal Exports 30 13:30 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland Over the weekend, the Prime Minister went to India and sold Australian jobs out. While there, he told his Indian counterparts that Australia's exports of coal and gas will wane and instead we're going to export lots of renewable energy, even though we don't export a single ounce of that today. Mr Albanese mustn't have read the report just a week before he arrived in India where Reuters blasted in their headline: India steps up coal use … Last year, India's coal use grew by eight per cent, faster than its economic growth. India is Australia's biggest market for coking coal, which goes into making steel, and India has plans to triple its steel production over the next decade. It'll need enormous amounts of steel as it grows and develops to build new homes and bridges. We have an enormous opportunity because India doesn't have reserves of high-quality coking coal but we do. That's why our coal exports have been growing and why it's bankrolling our nation's budget. The message Anthony Albanese sent to India over the weekend is that Australia is not open for business and that India should stop coming to our country to seek to meet its future energy needs. And that's what India is already doing. I think they've read the tea leaves indicating that this Labor-Green government can't be trusted. Earlier this year, for the first time, the biggest exporter of coking coal to India was Russia, not Australia. Why would an Australian government push India into the arms of Russia right now? Why would an Australian government sell out Australian jobs in favour of creating Russian jobs? I can't remember the Prime Minister coming to Central Queensland or the Hunter Valley before last year's election and telling them that he and his government would shut down the export of Australian coal. I can't remember him doing that at all. Why didn't he have the guts to turn up there and tell them that instead of going all the way over to India to sell out their jobs, sell out their futures and sell out this nation's opportunity to— (Time expired) Murray-Darling Basin Plan 31 13:32 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia The River Murray is the lifeblood of my state of South Australia, and its health is an existential question for my state, because the river's future will determine South Australia's future. The river's health will determine our health. That is why I welcome the introduction of the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill in the House of Representatives last week. It is a bill that delivers on our promise to deliver the Murray-Darling Basin Plan as it was designed and in line with the science to see the promised 450 gigalitres restored to the basin. Those 450 gigalitres are essential to the health of the river to ensure that its ecology can withstand the next dry spell. It gives us more time, more options, more funding and, critically, more accountability. After almost a decade of sabotage by the Liberals and Nationals, that is the only way we will get there. For almost a decade, they ignored their own reports that the plan was in trouble. They undermined projects that they couldn't deliver. They stalled. They sabotaged. In South Australia, their own minister capitulated. My state cannot afford this any longer. Delivering the plan requires strong, decisive action. That is what the Albanese Labor government intends to deliver, because, without it, the lifeblood of my state is at risk. This is everything to my state. Swift Parrots 31 13:33 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Last week, on Threatened Species Day, the environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, announced a new recovery plan and $1.3 million of funding for the swift parrot. You'd think, with an announcement like this, that the minister would have consulted with the experts in relation to making sure we can save this critically endangered species. But, alas, we now find out that this was a rushed announcement without consultation, and the very experts who had been asked previously about what to do were left in the dark. In fact, they only found out once they were questioned and asked for a response by journalists. Now, this is just more spin from this environment minister under this government. We know what the real threat to the swift parrot it, and that, of course, is the logging of our native forests. There are only around 300 to 750 of these birds left in the wild. They are beautiful parrots, they are beautiful birds and they are under huge threat. Every time the logging trucks roll out, their homes are destroyed. The only plan to save the swift parrot is to stop the destruction of our native forests. But, of course, in this recovery plan announced in haste and pushed out for the spin and the cameras last Thursday, there was not one mention of the real threat that is pushing this bird to the brink. We have to face facts here. If we want to stop the extinction of our native species, we've got to stop destroying their homes. If we want to save the swift parrot—and we all should—we have to stop logging their homes. Geeveston Community Centre 31 13:35 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania I rise today to express my sincere gratitude to the people who work and volunteer in our community centres. I would specifically like to talk about my most recent visit to Geeveston, just south of Hobart. I stopped off at the Geeveston Community Centre, which engages with businesses, the community and individuals around the Huon Valley. It was an absolute pleasure to meet with Nicole, the centre manager, and Trish, the program manager, while I was there. Nicole and Trish walked me through the services the centre offers to the local community, of which are many. Like so many community centres, they collaborate with Loaves and Fishes Tasmania to provide emergency food relief to local families. While I was listening to the managers around a cup of tea, I witnessed how fast the provisions that were dropped off that day were quickly waiting out. People were waiting for the truck to arrive and rushed to the shelves once the product was laid out. The centre reaches out to around 300 to 400 people a month and has seen a 180 per cent increase in emergency food relief demand in just 12 months—even further evidence of the cost-of-living crisis that is currently gripping our country. The community centre also offers the Jumpstart Learner Driver Mentor Program, a free service who for learners who need to get their hours and experience in driving before they get their Ps. Without this important local service, these learners would have to go to Hobart, which is about an hour north of Geeveston, and they would have to pay for the driving lessons themselves. With the donations, the funding and the support that it receives, the Geeveston Community Centre offers further services: a community shed that is very popular with both men and women within the town, a full professional kitchen facility, support for those dealing with homeless, a collaboration with 26TEN to develop and improve the literacy and numeracy skills of adults in the region, and so much more. It is a real pleasure today to update the Senate on that visit and to thank the Geeveston Community Centre for showing me around. I look forward to another visit very soon. Education: Funding 32 13:37 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales The Minister for Education, the Hon. Jason Clare, has recently said: Australia has a good education system, but it can be a lot better and a lot fairer. I have to say that with this minister I most heartily agree. How we fund our schools and what funding does is integral to making schools the best that they can be. In this regard, I'm pleased to say that this government is getting on with the work of meeting our election commitment to work with the states and territories to get every school funded to 100 per cent of its fair funding level. Let me put on the record, colleagues here in the Senate and those who are attending parliament, that there is an incredible amount of work that needs to be done to redress the ripping apart of fair funding that was the signature of the previous government. We anticipate that, over the next six years, those non-government schools that are being funded above the school resourcing standard will return to baseline and, at the same time, government schools in most parts of the country will hit 95 per cent of the standard. Per-student Commonwealth funding for government schools went up by seven per cent over the past year, from $3,829 per student in 2022 to $4,096 per student in 2023. It's a very sound investment in our nation, in our people and in our future. Furthering this, the government is listening to parents, carers, teachers, unions and students, and this has included more than 13,000 educators, 8,000 parents and close to 3,000 students. The common thread here is a government that's listening, is aware of the challenges and is taking concrete steps to ensure the next national school reform agreement does its job. Murray-Darling Basin 32 13:39 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community it's my job to raise issues that matter to constituents. Minister Plibersek has hijacked the Murray-Darling Basin Plan to win votes in the city at the expense of the bush. The minister has just announced a 42 gigalitre buyback of agricultural water—farming water—which is 42,000 million litres of water now, with the threat of another 450 gigalitres in buybacks before 2027. Originally there was never any intention to get the last 450 gigalitres of water, which was only intended to flow out to sea, through buybacks. The water was always supposed to come from measures to reduce water loss from natural and man-made constraints right across the basin. Justifying the weaponisation of this last 450 gigalitres as the only way to open the Murray mouth is spurious. Flow from the Coorong water system can open the mouth, yet this has not occurred in living memory, because South Australia spent 140 years digging drains to divert surface flow, and with it aquifer flow, away from the Coorong catchment and out to sea. The South Australian government's south-east drains restoration project is now correcting that mistake at last and last year returned 100 gigalitres to the Coorong. One Nation calls on the state and federal water ministers to end political grandstanding, to suspend the 450 gigalitre acquisition and to provide funds to complete stage 2 of the south-east drains restoration project, which should eventually return at least double stage 1. This is how we get the extra water to open the Murray mouth and to reverse 50 years of environmental damage to the Coorong and lower lakes due to political lies. Our amazing farmers use their water to feed and clothe the world. Stop treating them like criminals just to win votes off the teals and Greens in the city. Cost of Living 32 13:41 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia This is a government addicted to spin. We saw over the weekend Treasurer Jim Chalmers out and about backgrounding media—crowing, in fact—about wage increases. Australians have never had it so good, according to this Labor government. Let's look a little bit deeper because every Australian out there knows that that's not the reality of their lives. Treasurer Jim Chalmers is out there crowing about $10 more per day in the average earner's pay packet, but what has happened to your mortgage? The average Australian mortgage has gone up by more than $1,000 a month. Do the maths. That's in excess of $33 per day. The average grocery bill for an average family has gone up by at least that $10 a day. Fuel has gone up. Electricity has gone up. Every Australian knows this and every Australian family knows this. Real wages are not going up; they're going backwards under this Labor government because it doesn't know how to control inflation. For comparison let's look around the world. In Argentina, wages—not real wages—have just gone up by 26 per cent. Doesn't that sound good for the workers in Argentina? Gosh. I bet Jim Chalmers would love to claim that 26 per cent wage increase. But that's on the back of the 100 per cent inflation rate. Those workers are going backwards, and that's exactly what's happening in Australia. Labor is spinning, spinning, spinning. Caravanning 33 13:43 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania This week I was proud to announce my intention to start the parliamentary friends of caravanning group here in Parliament House. This new cross-partisan group, led by me and Scott Buchholz MP, will share how caravans and motorhomes have built the great Australian road trip adventure. Over countless years and eras Australia's expansive roads and regional wonders have enlightened Australians to explore our beautiful country—from the Lockhart River in Queensland down to Port Arthur in gorgeous Tasmania. While caravanning has brought immense joy to great Australian nomads and families, that is not the only value this uniquely Australian experience has brought to our country. The caravanning and motorhomes industry is also one of the biggest supporters of regional jobs, tourism operators and small businesses in this nation. They've encouraged those here and abroad to get in a caravan and travel to places otherwise less accessible for other modes of transportation. In turn, these industries have helped to stimulate consumption jobs, cultural value and growth in remote communities across Australia. This is why it is so important for this parliament to be aware of the economic, social and cultural value of caravanning and motorhoming in this great nation. In my home state of Tasmania the potential for a booming caravan and motorhome industry is unbelievable. However, the state Liberal government can take a number of modest actions to boost this sector that are full of benefits to both consumers and businesses. These include improving the standard of caravan parks and establishing or adding free camping spaces so that we're inviting visitors to spend longer in our home state. This is a role that state government can be playing. It will bring more money to our economy. It's showcasing the jewel in the crown of this great nation of ours, and I— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 155410 Thank you, Senator Polley. Senator Steele-John. Human Rights: Iran 33 13:45 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia This Saturday 16 September will mark one year since the tragic death of Iranian woman Jina Mahsa Amini. On 13 September 2022, Jina was visiting Iran's capital, Tehran, from her home town in the western Kurdish region. Little did she realise that this visit would be her last. Jina was arrested by Iran's morality police, and three days later she died in police custody. Jina Amini represented women across the world. She represented defiance in the face of tyranny. She represented courage and freedom. Her legacy, beginning with the women and the people of Iran, has birthed the Women, Life, Freedom movement. It's a movement that will always remind the world of the harsh reality of women's rights in Iran and in many countries. The gendered impact of authoritarian rule cannot and must not be ignored. In solidarity with the Iranian diaspora in Australia, the Australian Greens are calling on the government to list the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation under the Criminal Code Act 1995. We're calling for the expansion of Magnitsky-style sanctions on individuals and organisations linked to the Iranian regime. The Australian Greens are in solidarity with the Iranian diaspora community in Australia in their ongoing fight for freedom. Women, life, freedom—we hear you, we are in solidarity with you, and we will not end pressure on the Australian government until— The ACTING D 155410 Thank you, Senator Steele-John. Senator Babet. Electric Vehicles 33 13:48 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria To all the Australian farmers, miners and tradies out there, I'd like to welcome you to the dystopian world of net zero—a world brought to you by the Liberals, the Nationals, Labor and the Greens. Let me inform you of the wonders of the only electric ute currently available for sale in Australia. For nearly 93 grand, plus on-road costs, you can drive away in a brand new, made in China LDV eT60. Doesn't that sound appealing? Are you dreaming of weekends away camping, caravanning or boating? Forget it! This beauty has a towing limit of a thousand kilograms and is only available in two-wheel drive, with a range of under 200 kilometres when towing or carrying a load. Instead of asking the salesman for free floor mats, you'd better ask him to throw in a free diesel generator and a jerry can. How about that instead? Not convinced? Here is the kicker: it's carbon neutral—how good is that, right?—as long as you ignore the 3,000 kilograms of steel, copper, lithium, nickel, manganese, cobalt, graphite, zinc and all the rest of it. Don't forget to turn a blind eye to the coal fired power used in the Chinese factory; the diesel trains, the trucks and the ships that are used for transport; and the fossil fuels that you're going to use when you charge it at night in the comfort of your own garage here in Australia. Do you know what virtue-signalling is? It's an expensive business. We've got to reject net zero, because it makes net zero sense. Net zero is a total and complete and utter scam designed to shut down our nation, enrich predatory globalists and the CCP. That is all it's going to do. COVID-19: Testing 34 13:50 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland In the last Senate estimates, I asked the Therapeutic Goods Administration if they could tell me which part of the coronavirus genomic sequence they used to indicate that someone was positive to COVID and whether that genomic sequence made up other coronaviruses. Professor Murphy responded: We can provide on notice the specific primers and the part of the virus it's used for. We do not believe there was cross-reactivity with other coronaviruses, but we can provide on notice. We have experts at Doherty who would be happy to provide that information. Last week, I finally got the answer I have been waiting on for a very long time and—surprise, surprise!—I'll read it out to you: There are a range of primers used in Australian laboratories, developed commercially or in-house … each targeting different areas of the SARS-CoV-2 viral genome. Depending on a laboratories individual established workflow … target genes include— I'll note the RdRp gene. This is the bit that you'll like: … the Australian Government cannot provide primer sequence information for commercially available test kits as this is commercial in confidence… Get a load of this. For almost two years we shut down an entire country, spent hundreds of billions of dollars and instilled fear into every man, woman and child because of a virus, but when it comes to asking the health department for the part of the sequence that they used to indicate whether or not someone had a positive response to that virus they can't provide it, because it's 'commercial in confidence'. Well, excuse me. I didn't know that a virus could be patented, or am I missing something here? You tell me. Bring on the royal commission. Tasmania: Youth Volunteer Army 34 13:52 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania What do the local footy club, agricultural shows and charity op-shops all have in common? They all rely on volunteers to operate. We know that volunteering has been on the decline over the past five years, and it's estimated that, without action now, by 2029 there will be a 42 per cent gap between the demand for and supply of volunteers in Tasmania, and that puts our community organisations at risk. In Tassie we've already seen events cancelled not because of a lack of funding but because there was simply not enough people to run the event. We have an untapped resource in our young people, and Volunteering Tasmania is drawing on them with its Youth Volunteer Army. I hadn't heard about this program until a few weeks ago and I think it's a really great idea, so I want to tell you a little bit more about it. The Youth Volunteer Army partners with public high schools and jobs hubs to get students engaged with community led initiatives. It helps organisations to keep running and helps students develop critical skills that will help them get into employment. Right now, 500 students have registered in the program, and they've logged 11,500 hours of volunteering—for a young one that's pretty good, I thought. Other states are wanting to get in on the great work we're doing. The Youth Volunteer Army trial has been running since 2021 and is set to end in 2024. It's a no-brainer to keep it going. The numbers speak for themselves. This program has been a great success. I encourage the Tasmanian state government to work with Volunteering Tasmania to make sure this program can continue and to make more people aware of this amazing program. Volunteers are the backbone of our communities. Without them our community organisations and sporting groups wouldn't be able to continue. Getting young people involved in volunteering increases their chances of employment and gets them involved in their communities, and that's a win-win for me. Non-Resident Nepali Association 34 13:53 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales On 2 September this year I attended the national conference of the Non-Resident Nepali Association, the NRNA, in Parramatta. The NRNA has been established for some time to bring together the Nepalese diaspora in Australia to promote the interests of the bilateral relationship Australia has with Nepal and to promote of Nepalese culture within our great country. The relationship between our two countries is very important. We host so many young Nepalese in our country for an education, and I believe this is one of Australia's secret weapons. For many years, the NRNA has hosted events. I have personally attended one of the major events in Burwood in Sydney. It is a remarkably entertaining experience to attend an NRNA event. It was a great pleasure to be there for their annual meeting, where they elected a new executive, and I want to extend my congratulations to Mr Anil Pokhrel, who is the new President of the NRNA. I know that the body will go on to bigger and better things under his stewardship. It's a very important diaspora group in Australia. I love being able to work with Nepalese Australians. We launched a parliamentary friendship group earlier this year with the support of the other parties, and it was a great pleasure to be there in Parramatta only a couple of weeks ago. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 35 13:55 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania Finding a medication that works well for you and stabilises your condition is vital for someone living with a chronic illness. Having access to that medication can literally be life changing. That's the experience of more than 15,000 Australians who live with type 1 diabetes and use the fast-acting insulin Fiasp, including my niece Sarah and her six-year-old son Ollie. I have shared Sarah and Ollie's story before in this place. They are just two of many Australians who have been living the last six months in fear and uncertainty due to the failures of the Albanese Labor government to act decisively on this issue. Despite a six-month temporary extension in April, affordable access to the fast-acting insulin Fiasp is set to be ripped away from them and others on 1 October as a result of the government's decision to schedule this drug for removal from the PBS. What happens after that deadline is uncertain, but the decision will have far-reaching consequences that go far beyond financial. Fiasp is the only type of insulin Ollie has ever known. Because it is fast acting, it means he does not have to wait 20 minutes before eating. Going without it goes against the natural impulsiveness of childhood. Without Fiasp, Ollie loses his freedom to be a child, and it adds additional stress for his mother while she's trying to manage her own illness. The reality is that there is no comparable product for either of them. As the end date for the extension looms over the diabetes community, the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Mark Butler, has been completely silent on whether users will still have affordable access to Fiasp from 1 October this year. I call on the minister for health to provide immediate certainty to the type 1 diabetes community about the ongoing availability of this critical drug on the PBS. Workplace Relations: Qantas 35 13:57 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales On Wednesday morning, the High Court will hand down its decision on the case of 1,700 Qantas ground staff who were sacked in the middle of the pandemic. Despite the Federal Court twice finding the sackings to be illegal, Qantas have dragged the case to the High Court. What we're seeing from Qantas is a systematic effort to destroy the lives and livelihoods of 1,700 families. Dragging these workers through years of litigation has continued the trauma of Qantas's unethical decision to sack them. Damien, a Qantas employee for 12 years who was sacked along with his colleagues, said the sacking 'broke a lot of hearts' and that Qantas used the pandemic as 'a window of opportunity to get rid of a unionised workforce'. We need to understand that the High Court decision on Wednesday will have implications for thousands of workers far beyond Qantas itself. What we'll see is big companies spending millions on top-floor lawyers, who will go over the court's decision with a fine-tooth comb. Make no mistake: employers will use this decision as a roadmap to exploit loopholes and outsource their workforce, which, no doubt, those opposite will back. The use of cheaper, less secure, outsourced labour to undercut decent wages and secure jobs is a form of exploitation and avoidance that will only continue to rise without addressing the 'Joyce loopholes'. That is why, now more than ever, we need our government's closing loopholes legislation to pass through parliament. This bill is about protecting the Australian workforce and their right to decent conditions and fair pay and about ensuring that the experience of these 1,700 Qantas workers doesn't happen anywhere else in the future. The 10000 As I don't have anyone else on the list of speakers, we will go to question time. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 35 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Space Industry 35 13:59 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Does the minister believe it was appropriate to deliberately hide from the United States, until the day before its public release, the decision of the Albanese Labor government to axe the National Space Mission for Earth Observation program? What knowledge did the minister have of this deliberate strategy? 14:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, President, and I note your generosity to the opposition in starting question time early. Senator Birmingham, I don't agree with the way in which the question's been put to me. Our relationship with the United States is deep and enduring. We have significant cooperation on space. In relation to this particular budget decision, the United States was advised ahead of time, as was appropriate. In terms of my engagement, this is obviously a budget decision. The senator has been a finance minister— Senator WONG 00AOU And I'm a member of the expenditure review committee. I was trying to allude to that, but I'm happy to explain it. We have had to make some tough choices, which is why this government has found budget savings to rein in the deficit, to tackle inflation. We've started the hard work to rebuild fiscal buffers. Unlike those opposite, we're actually delivering on that, as opposed to making sure we have mugs on our parliamentary desks saying 'Back in black'. A gove rnment senator interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU A lot of mugs over there, yes. But I would say to Senator Birmingham that I was pleased, at AUSMIN, to be part of further announcements in relation to space programs, with an announcement that was made with the Deputy Prime Minister, Secretary Blinken and Secretary Austin at the Brisbane AUSMIN in July, which probably indicates our view about the relevance of this matter of space coordination to our relationship and to our ongoing cooperation across a range of fronts. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, a first supplementary? 14:02 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Why was it—and I quote from government emails released under freedom of information laws—'an express preference from the minister and PMO that the US be notified no earlier than Wednesday', the day prior to announcement? Did the minister or her office express concerns with this deliberately tricky and deceptive approach? Or did the government not trust the United States with the information? 14:02 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia It's really disappointing to see a senior member of the opposition, the alternative government—in fact, the shadow minister for foreign affairs and former trade minister—speaking in those terms about our ally, or implying for partisan political purposes any issue with our ally. It says something about you and about the way in which you approach foreign policy in this place, Senator Birmingham. But what I would say to you is this. You asked about 'the minister', I think, a couple of times in the question, one time referring to me and the other time I assume referring to Senator Husic. I assume 'the minister' you were referring to is Minister Husic, because you are quoting from the DISR FOI. So, I'll answer the question in two parts. First, in relation to the first part, the US was advised ahead of time, as was appropriate, and I can confirm that— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, a second supplementary? 14:04 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Was the Albanese government truthful in all its dealings with the United States, particularly during the visit to Australia by NASA leadership in March this year? Or did ministers and officials mislead the US by pretending that the National Space Mission for Earth Observation program was continuing for months after the budget cut was already determined? 14:04 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia (—) (): Well, I'm asked a question about truthfulness by a former member of the Morrison cabinet. I'm asked a question about truthfulness in relation to discussions with allies. I might remember Senator Payne when she was dispatched along with the then defence minister who were not allowed to do anything other than, if not deliberately mislead, certainly mislead by omission, the government of France and their counterparts in France because of Mr Morrison's obsession with secrecy. What I would say to you is that we have, as you might recall from Senator Blinken's comments at AUSMIN, not only an historically deep and trusting relationship with the United States but, as a matter between principals, we work extremely closely together and we are good friends and we treat them accordingly. (Time expired) ASEAN-Australia Summit, East Asia Summit 36 14:05 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia My question is for the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Can the minister update the Senate on the ASEAN-Australia Summit and the East Asia Summit leaders' meeting held in Jakarta last week? What progress can the minister report on advancing Australia's economic interests in the region, and what can the minister advise the Senate on in our efforts with our regional partners to maintain stability and prevent conflict? 14:06 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you very much. I appreciate the question from Senator Smith and her engagement on so many matters, including on her interest in international matters and, like all of us, how it is that Australia navigates these very challenging strategic times to ensure peace, stability and prosperity. Last week, I did join the Prime Minister at the successful ASEAN related summits. Of course, this includes, principally, at leaders' level, the East Asia Summit where, regrettably, Russia has been a spoiler. Last year, people might recall, Russia prevented agreement on a leaders' statement. Once again, this year, they sought to undermine these efforts. Can I perhaps speak briefly about why the East Asia Summit is so important to Australia. We share an interest with ASEAN and the other members of the EAS in ensuring that this summit, which is such an important security forum for our region, operates effectively. We played an active role in overcoming Russia's efforts and securing a negotiated East Asia Summit leaders' statement. We also supported an additional strong chair statement by Indonesia that demanded Russia's complete and unconditional withdrawal from Ukraine. That statement recognised the need for all East Asia Summit participating countries to promote open channels of communication to reduce risks of misunderstanding and miscalculation, and to prevent conflict in our region. Those who have been paying attention will recognise that those channels are the kinds of guardrails for practical conflict prevention that the Albanese government has been calling for. In Jakarta, the Prime Minister also notes the South-East Asia economic strategy to 2040, as developed by Nicholas Moore. The strategy maps out trade and investment opportunities in the region, which is, of course, a part of how we ensure we reduce reliance on any single trading partner. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Marielle Smith, a first supplementary? 14:08 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia I note that after the ASEAN-Australia summit and the East Asia leaders' meeting, the Prime Minister travelled to Manila for the first bilateral visit by an Australian Prime Minister in 20 years. Why did the Prime Minister prioritise this visit, and why does it matter to Australia? 14:08 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'll take the interjection, and I'm happy to talk about Myanmar but, right now, it's an important bilateral relationship, the Philippines, and one I hope there's bipartisan support for. This was first bilateral visit by an Australian Prime Minister in 20 years. That is a clear statement of our government's intention and priorities. Labor has always understood that Australia needs to work with the countries of South-East Asia to achieve our security interests in a stable region where sovereignty is respected. It is less known about former Prime Minister Whitlam's visit to China that, on the same trip in 1971, he also visited Japan and the Philippines. Australia and the Philippines have common strategic and economic interests and there is more we can do together. While in Manila, the Prime Minister announced the elevation of our relationship to a strategic partnership. This means we will walk even more closely with the Philippines to contribute to strategic balance and to shape the region we want. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, a second supplementary? 14:09 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Minister, over the weekend the Prime Minister attended the G20 leaders meeting in New Delhi. Can the minister update the Senate on the outcomes of that meeting, and why engagement in the G20 is so important for Australia? 14:09 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you to Senator Smith for this question about the G20. Our engagement with the G20 has never been more important, given the circumstances the world faces. As I said, we all know that Russia has been a spoiler at key international meetings. But despite their efforts over the weekend, the G20 delivered a strong consensus message on Russia's war in Ukraine. The statement was clear about the need to respect the UN charter and the principles of territorial sovereignty, and it called on all states to uphold the principles of international law. The point that must be made over and over again in relation to Ukraine is that the principles in the charter and the principles of territorial integrity and sovereignty protect all of us. In several key aspects, this statement was stronger than last year's, especially in relation to the food and energy impacts of Russia's war, which are so important to our regional partners and in the global south. We will continue to push for more and continue to stand with Ukraine. (Time expired) Aviation Industry 37 14:10 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong: I refer the minister to comments made last week by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Catherine King, when she said regarding the government's rejection of Qatar Airways: I consulted colleagues prior to the decision, but the decision was mine. Can you confirm, given Minister King's claims she consulted with colleagues, that you, as this nation's foreign affairs minister, were consulted prior to her making this decision in the national interest on a matter of foreign relations? If so, what was the nature of that consultation and on what date did that, or those conversations, occur? 14:11 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you to Senator McKenzie for the question. Obviously, this is a decision that was a decision of Ms King's. I've made the point that this was a decision that, in fact, changed nothing. It was a decision that went to the status quo, and Minister King made that decision as the Minister for Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Minister King has confirmed she consulted with a number of colleagues and weighed a range of matters to determine whether an expansion was in Australia's national interest. As Minister for Foreign Affairs, I was one of the ministers consulted. I do not intend to go into the detail of those consultations. I can probably point you, Senator McKenzie, to many occasions where Senator Payne said the same thing in answer to my questions. Senator McKenzie 207825 President— Senator WONG 00AOU Wow, you're making a point of order on that? I just answered your question! The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator McKenzie? Senator McKenzie 207825 A point of order on direct relevance. I fully appreciate Senator Wong's not going into detail of the conversation— The PRESIDENT 112096 Your point of order? Senator McKenzie 207825 My question, President, was about the date that those conversations occurred. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator McKenzie. Your question went to the nature and the date, and the minister is being relevant. She may not be answering in the way that you want, but the minister is being relevant. Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU I'm sorry, Senator Ruston, did you have something you wanted to say to me? The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Watt 245759 Another foreign-policy genius over there! The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Watt! Senator WONG 00AOU The minister considers a range of factors when determining expansion of bilateral air rights—it's in our national interest—as did Mr McCormack when he made an identical decision. I have made clear that I don't propose to go through the detail of that. Certainly, one of the things I would say about the way our government operates is that we do have discussions with colleagues and consultations with colleagues. But I have responded to the question and I have nothing further to add, other than to make this point: this is a decision that is consistent with the decision that Minister McCormack made. It's also consistent with the decision that others have made over on that side—that is, to look at what the national interest is— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, a first supplementary. 14:14 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Minister, on what date were you informed of the decision to deny Qatar Airways' application? 14:14 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I will confirm this, Senator McKenzie, but my recollection is that I became aware of that decision after the decision was made. But I will confirm that. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, a second supplementary question. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my left! Order, Senator Cash! Order! This is wasting time. I called Senator McKenzie. 14:15 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Minister, did you inform the Qatari foreign minister or ambassador before the decision was made public? 14:15 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'd make the observation it would not be normal practice for a lot of those bilateral engagements to be conducted in the public eye, Senator McKenzie. I would invite you to perhaps engage with colleagues who have held this portfolio. What I would say to you is that— Senator Ruston 243273 Did you or didn't you? Senator WONG 00AOU I'm just wondering if Senator Ruston would like to say something? The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please continue answering the question. Senator WONG 00AOU I would not normally, nor would anyone in this role, go through chapter and verse what is discussed between interlocuters at foreign minister level. I would say to you that we continue to engage with Qatar on a range of issues. (Time expired) Uranium 39 14:16 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I rise to ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Resources, Minister Farrell. Just last week, Energy Resources Australia announced their intention to apply for an extension of their lease at Jabiluka mine, which sits within Kakadu National Park. It is estimated that the uranium deposit is one of the largest in the world. This comes off the back of concerns of ERA being able to fund rehabilitation in the nearby Ranger mine. It also occurs in the context of Australia not being a party to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. My question to the Minister is: has the government had an application for the extension of uranium mining at Jabiluka? 14:17 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Cox for her question and her courtesy in giving us some advance notice about the nature of the question. An application for the renewal of the Jabiluka mineral lease is not currently before the government, so if ERA have made that statement, they have not formally made an application for an extension of that licence. However, we will consider information about Jabiluka at the appropriate time. As you say, it is in the heart of the Kakadu National Park. That discussion will take place in good faith with all of the parties involved. If ERA do finally apply for the renewal of the lease, it's the Northern Territory minister who will have to consult with and act on the advice of the Commonwealth before advising ERA of its decision. We note that ERA and Rio Tinto have expressed commitments to the longstanding Jabiluka long-term care and maintenance agreement that provides that Jabiluka will not be developed without the consent of Mirrar traditional owners. It's understandable that the traditional owners and those working on country apply appropriate scrutiny to any decision or any application that might be made. The Albanese government is committed to sustainable mining to protect our pristine environment, and that's why we're establishing the national— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cox, a first supplementary question? 14:19 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia At the recent Labor conference in Brisbane this Labor government reaffirmed their commitment to sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Whilst there is talk of more uranium mining, does this government have a timeline for signing the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons? 14:19 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Cox for her first supplementary question. There is a difference between mining uranium and the proliferation of nuclear weapons but, as you say, this issue was discussed at the recent ALP national conference, at which I was present. Labor has a proud history of advocating for nonproliferation and disarmament and is committed to the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. We support the treaty— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator Cox? Senator Cox 296215 Just a point on relevance. My direct question went to a time line, so, with the last 16 seconds, can you point the minister in the direction of the time line, please? The PRESIDENT 112096 I believe he is being relevant. Minister Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU I apologise to Senator Cox and the President, because I was just distracted, but I would raise again that it doesn't sound to me like this is a supplementary question from the original question. In fact, the treaty—TPNW—is probably better addressed to my portfolio, not the resources portfolio, and a number of others have raised it. Certainly I don't recall the treaty being discussed in the primary question. Obviously, the minister can answer what he's able to in his portfolio, but I again request that we look at whether or not supplementary questions are in fact supplementary. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cox, I have sought advice, and the clerk has advised me that you have jumped portfolio. As Minister Wong has informed you, Senator Farrell will continue to answer the question, but—yes, Senator Cox? Senator Cox 296215 Can I clarify that the words 'treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons' was actually in the original question? But I appreciate Senator Wong's— T 112096 Yes. I noted the word was there, but I'm nevertheless advise that you have jumped portfolios. Senator Farrell. Senator FARRELL I0N The government is engaging constructively to identify realistic pathways for nuclear disarmament. For this reason— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cox, second supplementary? 14:21 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia It seems that there are only a few loud shareholders at ERA that want this extension. Will the government commit to not allowing uranium mining to continue at Jabiluka mine site? 14:22 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Cox for her second supplementary question. The truth of the matter, I think, Senator Cox, is that we don't wish to pre-empt what may happen at some stage in the future. In fact, I think it would be inadvisable in particular for me to make a comment in relation to that. An application for the renewal of the Jabiluka mineral lease is not currently before the government, and the Albanese government is committed to sustainable mining to protect our pristine environment. That's why we are establishing the National Environment Protection Agency. The government recognises the Mirarr people opposed mining at Jabiluka and the government recognises that ERA and Rio Tinto have a commitment to the longstanding Jabiluka long-term care— (Time expired) Employment 40 14:23 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria My question is to the Minister Representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Minister, since the Albanese Labor government took office 16 months ago, getting wages moving again has been a top priority. At a time when cost of living is an issue for Australians, we know that better wages will help to ease the pressure on household budgets. What measures has the government already delivered that will get more people into work and see them get better wage outcomes? 14:23 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Walsh for the question and for her years of advocacy in supporting wages for workers across this economy. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston. Senator GALLAGHER ING It is good news that we have seen the fastest increase in wages for some time. Senator Ruston 243273 Real or nominal, Katy? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, I've called you. Senator GALLAGHER ING I know Senator Ruston hates it, but the reality is— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Order on my left! Senator Ruston, that's three or four times I've called you. Minister Gallagher, please continue. Senat ING The reality is that, under the former government, wages were growing at 2.4 per cent for average workers, and they are now increasing by 3.9 per cent in the first year of the Albanese government. Workers are always better off under a Labor government, because they know that we have their back, that we care about the wages they earn, because we know what a difference it makes every day and every week, when you're putting your household budget together, if you are seeing improvements in your wages and improvements in the security of your jobs. That's what those opposite spent 10 years undermining. They undermined wage increases. They undermined job security. And we are here in yet another area cleaning up the mess that was left behind by those opposite. The average worker is earning $1,400 more a year under the wages increases under our government than if wages had continued to grow in the way they had been growing under the former government, at just 2.4 per cent. That's $1,400 more for the average worker to help pay their bills, put food on the table and deal with some of those cost-of-living increases. So, workers are better off from wages under this government, and they always will be. Those opposite spent their whole time trying to undermine them and make sure wages went backwards. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walsh, a first supplementary? 14:26 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Thank you, Minister. You just outlined an impressive record on wages for the first 16 months of this government. We know the Albanese Labor government is not wasting a day in supporting the economy. But there is more work to be done. What is next on the government's agenda to boost productivity growth and keep wages moving in the right direction? 14:26 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory While a lot has been done, we know there is a lot more to do. That's why we're working on expanding the productive capacity of the economy, another area where we inherited the worst productivity growth for the past 60 years—which just so happened to coincide with the decade that those opposite were in charge, turning up and doing nothing, as usual. We are now rebuilding Australia's industrial capacity through the National Reconstruction Fund, supporting the transformation to net zero—again, something that's still controversial for those opposite—and building a bigger and better trained workforce through our skills agreement. We're leveraging capital and lifting investment. We're delivering more-efficient markets. We're reforming our economic institutions. We turn up every day to work in the national interests of this country. We don't miss an opportunity. There's a lot to do to improve productivity across this economy, but this government is focused on it, as we are on wages and conditions for working people. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walsh, a second supplementary? 14:27 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria The former government had low wages growth as a deliberate design feature of their economic architecture, which resulted in a decade of wage stagnation for Australians. How does the Albanese government's productivity agenda, with a focus on getting wages moving again, differ from that of the former Liberal-National government? 14:27 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Remember those opposite, when there was talk of minimum-wage workers getting an increase of $1 a day, saying how the world was going to end, that the sky was going to fall in? That tells you everything you need to know about the policies of those opposite. Unlike them, we want to see strong, sustainable wages growth as part of the solution to cost-of-living challenges in our economy. We don't see it as part of the problem. By delaying consideration of the closing-loopholes bill, those opposite are now delaying further pay increases for mine and aviation workers. But should we be surprised? This is in their DNA—to make sure wages are kept low and conditions are in favour of the employer, not the employee. They're delaying minimum standards that will save the lives of gig workers. They voted to trap permanent casuals in insecure work for longer. They voted to delay the criminalisation of wage theft. They've spent their entire time in government keeping wages low and holding workers back, and nothing's changed with them in opposition. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 41 14:29 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland My question is to the Special Minister of State, Senator Farrell. The Constitution requires the proposed law to be submitted to the electors so electors can see what they are voting on in a referendum. Do you agree that the proposed text to be included on the ballot paper is the full text of the proposed law change as contained in the enabling legislation, the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Voice 2023? 14:29 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Roberts for giving me the courtesy of some advance knowledge of this question. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N Well, some people just like me! I hate to say it—I can't help it! Some of them actually get a better answer if they give me a bit of advance notice. It's hard to believe, I know. I have been made aware that there are claims by one legal academic that the form of the proposed constitutional amendment and/or the ballot paper question do not satisfy the constitutional requirements for a referendum. But the referendum legal issues have been considered in detail by the Constitutional Expert Group, the Solicitor-General and the parliamentary inquiry. This gives me some assurance that the amendment and the question are legally sound, Senator Roberts. Historically, all referendum ballot paper questions have either used the short title, until 1951, or the long title, after 1951, of the Constitution alteration that passed through the parliament. The question for the Voice uses the long title, consistent with the practice for over 70 years. The government is aware of a potential challenge to the ballot paper reform. This application has not yet been accepted by the High Court and is therefore not an active proceeding. At this point, I'm advised that it is probably inappropriate to comment further on that possible legal challenge. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, a first supplementary? 14:31 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Section 128 of the Constitution makes no provision for a summary of the change to appear on the ballot paper. Section 128 requires the proposed law change to be submitted in full. Form B of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984, which allows for a summary, is in breach of section 128 of the Constitution. Minister, will you ensure the Voice ballot paper is compliant with the constitutional provisions for a referendum? 14:32 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Roberts for his first supplementary question. Yes, Senator Roberts, I will ensure that the wording in the question on the referendum on 14 October is compliant with the Constitution. Can I reiterate my earlier answer, that all of the advice that I've got from the Constitutional Expert Group, from the Solicitor-General and from the parliamentary inquiry that examined this issue is that it does meet the existing constitutional requirements. I should say that my office has at all times tried to facilitate your ability to get advice directly from the AEC about any issues that you might have with the ballot paper. I invite you to— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, a second supplementary? 14:33 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland A case could and will be made to the High Court that including a misleading feel-good summary on the referendum ballot paper rather than the actual details of the change is a breach of section 128 of the Constitution, which may have the effect of misleading voters and rendering the result void. Minister, are you or your government about to make a $364 million mistake? 14:33 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Roberts for his second supplementary question. No, I don't believe so. I have seen some of the reports that you are referring to. Interestingly, one of the reports I think that you're relying on was from Michael Detmold, who was my constitutional law lecturer in 1972 at Adelaide university. But that doesn't mean, Senator Roberts, unfortunately, that everything he may or may not say is correct. Senator Scarr 282997 Did you pass? Senator FARRELL I0N You'll be surprised, Senator Scarr—I did. I not only passed Constitutional Law 1, but I passed Constitutional Law 2. That was even more surprising! (Time expired) Wages 42 14:34 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. What was the real wages outcome for the financial year 2022-23? 14:35 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Brockman for the question. If you listened to my previous answer, I was talking about how wages are moving faster than they have. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING I know. Get excited. But we've currently got one minute and 45 seconds for me to answer this question, and I intend to take every last second of it, because wages are something that matters to this government, unlike yours, which had keeping wages low as a deliberate design feature of its economic architecture. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator Brockman? Senator Brockman 30484 President, this was an extraordinarily narrow question. Past rulings from presidents have indicated that a glancing reference to the opposition is acceptable. We only have a very narrow question, and I ask you to draw the minister to the question or sit her down. Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Brockman. Order on my right! The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Watt! Senator Brockman, I will remind the senator of your question, and I'll also remind you that the senator said she intended to answer it in full. Senator GALLAGHER ING I did say I was going to answer it in full, and I am going to take the time that's allocated to me to answer it. I can understand why those opposite don't want to hear an answer about wages, because such an appalling feature of their economic plan was to keep wages low and to ensure that working people didn't get the wage increases that they deserved to deal with the cost of living and to ensure living standards remained high. As Senator Brockman—or former president Brockman, with that instruction that he gave me in the point of order to you, Madam President—would know, we are experiencing a period of high inflation, so that does impact on real wage outcomes. We have said that inflation is staying higher for longer than we would like, and the highest quarter of inflation actually occurred on the former government's watch, in the March quarter of 2022. So, whilst inflation remains high and wages are improving—and they are improving—real wage outcomes will be affected, and we are seeing that. It's forecast in our budget. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, you all have the budget papers in front of you. I know what you're trying to do. I am being honest about the issue. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator Birmingham? Senator Birmingham H6X President, the minister has now had one minute and 50 seconds of the two minutes of which she intended to use every possible second before answering the question. In the remaining 10 seconds, I invite her to be drawn to the very specific question: does Minister Gallagher know what the real wages outcome was for 2022-23, and will she tell the Senate? The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Birmingham. I'll draw the minister's attention to the question. Senator GALLAGHER ING CPI, I believe, was six per cent, and wages growth was in the order of 3.6 per cent, from memory, for the 2022-23 financial year. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Brockman, first supplementary? 14:38 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia So negative real wage growth. Reporting by Ellen Ransley from NCA Newswire and Kimberley Caines in today's West Australian quotes Treasury analysis claiming that the average Australian worker is $3,700 better off than a year ago. Does the government really think it can con Australians into believing they are better off under an Albanese government, given that the Treasury analysis quoted does not take into account the impacts of inflation and a year of falling real wages under your government? 14:38 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Well, the analysis is correct. Under the average outcome of 2.4 per cent, you would be getting less than you are getting now, because we supported the minimum wage increase. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Order! Senator Wong and Senator Birmingham! Senator GALLAGHER ING People have a government that argues for the minimum-wage workers to get a wage increase. Remember those submissions that your government didn't actually support? We supported a wage increase for aged-care workers: 15 per cent. We not only supported it but funded it, making a real difference. So, yes, the analysis is correct. This government takes wages and wage increases seriously, unlike yours, which kept them deliberately low for the past decade. That's what working people got: a decade of wage stagnation, because that is the economic architecture that you put in place. As inflation moderates and wages grow, we will see real wage growth. The budget was published six months ago; I'm surprised you've just cottoned onto it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Brockman, second supplementary? 14:40 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Minister, despite this government's extreme spin, can you explain how Australians are richer when last week's national accounts showed GDP per capita had fallen for two consecutive quarters under Labor and had grown by negative 0.3 per cent over the year to June? 14:40 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Working people are better off under Labor because we actually want them to get wage outcomes and are putting in place policies to deal with it; because we're investing in skills and jobs of the future; and because we're bringing back advanced manufacturing and creating investment opportunities for businesses in this country. We're dealing with the economy's single biggest transformation opportunity, the transition to net zero—again, something that those opposite still haven't come to terms with or agreed with. These are the issues that governments need to focus on so that we can seize the opportunities not just for this generation but for generations of the future. That is why we've been so focused on our economic plan, on making sure we're getting the settings right. Improving workers' wages and workers' conditions is part of that economic plan, because we care about working people and their lives, unlike those opposite. Overthrow of Chilean Government: 50th Anniversary 43 14:41 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Today marks 50 years since the Pinochet regime came to power in Chile. Given the extensive evidence of ASIS support for the coup, will the minister commit to apologising to the Chilean people and declassifying related documents so that the Australian community and the Australian nation can avoid making the same horrible mistake again? 14:41 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank Senator Steele-John for the question. Yes, I am aware of the coup d'etat in Chile which took place on this day in 1973. The tragedy that that was has been well documented. On this anniversary, we recognise the widespread suffering, the torture, the enforced disappearances and the human rights abuses which occurred during the brutal dictatorship over 17 years. I also want to recognise the Chilean diaspora and its contribution to Australia. There are many who arrived in this country as a consequence of what occurred in 1973 and the ensuing dictatorship. This commemoration serves as a sombre reminder of the importance of safeguarding democracy and the rule of law against attempts to use violence for political gain. I do have some concerns about some of the commentary that has been engaged in by the Greens political party. I appreciate the position you have on the US alliance. It is not the position— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator WONG 00AOU Would you like me to respond? You can all talk. The PRESIDENT 112096 I beg your pardon. Senator Steele-John. I thought you were holding up a document, but you're seeking a point of order. Senator Steele-John 250156 I can't stand. Necessarily— The PRESIDENT 112096 I appreciate that, but you did raise your hand. I thought you had a document. Senator Steele-John 250156 Thank you, President. On relevance: my question specifically related to the minister's giving to the Senate a commitment to declassify documents related to ASIS's involvement in the coup. I would ask you to draw her to that element of the question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Steele-John, your question had a very preamble which the minister is also entitled to address her response to. The minister is being relevant. Senator WONG 00AOU I was actually making the point, Senator Steele-John, that, whilst I understand that your political party and you personally have different views on the US alliance, we do not share those views. Senator Shoebridge 169119 This is about undermining democracy Senator WONG 00AOU Senator Shoebridge, is it your question or is it Senator Steele-John's? I'm happy for you to take a point of order, Senator Shoebridge. The PRESIDENT 112096 I call Senator Shoebridge to order. Senator Wong, have you finished your question? The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Shoebridge, I have called you to order. Minister Wong, have you finished your contribution? Senator WONG 00AOU I note that some of the commentary from the Greens has very much focused on the alliance point. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Steele-John, a first supplementary. 14:44 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Minister, other countries have, or are in the process of, declassifying documents relating to their involvement 50 years ago. Nearly 300 Chilean Australians have signed an open letter addressed to the Department of Foreign Affairs, asking for the declassification and acknowledgment of ASIS involvement. Minister, why will you not show transparency on this issue and ensure the community knows what was done in their name in the lead-up to the coup of '73? 14:45 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Steele-John. What I would say is that I certainly won't be—and no foreign minister would be—responding to a declassification request on the floor of the Senate. Any request for declassification of national security documents would be considered in the usual appropriate way. It's not a political issue; it is a consideration of how these matters should be dealt with. I appreciate the political point you're making, and I don't think it would be reasonable to suggest that anybody in this chamber would be anything other than horrified by what occurred in terms of the oppression during Chile's dictatorship. What happened to the Allende government is something that many of us have been engaged with over many years. (Time expired) The 10000 Senator Steele-John, a second supplementary question. 14:46 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Will the government commit at least to making reparations to Chilean Australians impacted by the coup Australia was involved in, and reform the ASIS security apparatus so that the Australian community and its intelligence agencies are never again brought into a campaign to destabilise a democratically elected government on behalf of the United States? 14:47 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I think it's QED on the US alliance point, which is the point I was making at the start of my answer. But what I would say to you is that the security agencies serve the national interest, and that they are subject to oversight from ministers and, increasingly, from entities like the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence Services, which I served on. And that is a good thing; they should be subject to oversight. But, ultimately, political decisions are matters for which politicians take responsibility, and I think that Labor's position in relation to the coup—the overthrow of the Allende government, a duly-elected government—and the subsequent dictatorship can be demonstrated by Labor history. Climate Change 45 14:48 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Wong. At last year's election, the Australian people resoundingly voted for action on climate change. Can the minister please explain to the Senate how the Albanese government is getting on with the job of reaching our legislated climate targets and delivering cleaner, cheaper energy for the Australian people? Senator Cana 245212 You're not on track, you're way behind! Senator Watt 245759 Be patient! 14:48 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'm happy to take another question from another great South Australian senator—that's two in a row to me, and I'm very grateful for that—on the issue of climate targets. I'll take the interjections from those opposite: we were all reminded about the fact there is one party who voted against price relief for Australian families, and that's those opposite. Senator Duniam 263418 And there's one party that promised it, but didn't deliver the $275! Senator WONG 00AOU Well, Australians did vote for us to work to deliver cleaner, cheaper and more reliable energy, and that is the action that the government is seeking to take. Yet despite the very clear message from the Australian people at the last election, it's quite clear those opposite still don't get it. When did we last see that? We saw that over the weekend, at the National's federal conference. I missed it! I missed it, but I came back to all these wonderful quotes. The member for New England, Mr Joyce, submitted a motion that called on the federal party room to 'abolish its policy of net zero'. And who lined up to support it? Mr Pitt and Senator Canavan. The Liberal leader, Mr Dutton, tried to shut down the chaos by saying, 'They might be saying that, but the coalition had "recommitted" to net zero.' As for the Nationals leadership team, I'll tell you what—such leadership—they abstained. Oh, my goodness. You have the man who wants to be the alternative prime minister of Australia, Mr Dutton, saying 'We "recommitted" to net zero,' you have Mr Joyce looking to abolish the policy of net zero, and then the leadership from Mr Littleproud— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my right. Senator McDonald? Senator McDonald 123072 On a point of order—I think we're all fascinated to hear about lower electricity under Labor. The PRESIDENT 112096 That's not a point of order, Senator McDonald. Minister Wong. Senator WONG 00AOU What I'd really like is for the Nationals to stand up and explain to us how it is that leadership is demonstrated. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Grogan, a first supplementary question? 14:51 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Thank you for that answer. There are so many things to refer to over the weekend's extravaganza from those opposite. Can the Minister please inform the Senate why large-scale renewable energy projects are so important to delivering cleaner, cheaper energy to the Australian people with the flourish of leadership that we see from Senator Wong? 14:51 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Investing in renewable energy is not only cleaner but it is also cheaper for households, businesses and industry, and we are working with state and territory governments to improve energy security and reliability by attracting investment in firm renewables. The CEO of the Australian Energy Market Operator said projects that do this will play a key role in protecting Australians from energy risks and challenges ahead. But what do see from those opposite and particularly the leadership of the Nationals? First, we see the great leader, the member for Maranoa, not only abstaining on the motion I referred to in the primary but also publicly calling for a pause in the rollout of renewable energy. Another motion passed at their conference demanded a moratorium on all large-scale renewable energy projects. All large-scale renewable energy projects. Who is actually running policy over there? Is it Mr Dutton who is recommitted? Senator Canavan put his hand up and I agree. Honoura ble senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, resume your seat. Order! Senator Grogan, a second supplementary question? 14:52 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia There are some who continue to promote the idea of nuclear power. Can the Minister please outline why scientists, industry, business and governments have not pursued nuclear power? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Before I call the Minister, I would ask that senators— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie! If you have something to say, take some time during the week. Senator Canavan, are you rising on a point of order? Senator Canavan 245212 I respect your ruling there, President, but we have had a question which has almost obsessively and exclusively focused on one of the opposition party's political conference. I think it's fair to have some leeway. I've got no problem with Senator Wong doing that, but if you're going to give it, you'd better be able to receive it too. The PRESIDENT 112096 The opportunity for receiving it is not question time. There are other opportunities during the week. I would invite senators—particularly those on my left—not to interject because the Minister is entitled to respond to interjections. Minister, please continue. 14:54 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia It is widely known that even small, modular nuclear reactors are tracking to be up to five times more expensive than firmed wind and solar in 2030. I don't know where all the rational economic thinkers are over there. Nuclear costs rose 36 per cent between 2009 and 2021. Solar costs fell 90 per cent and 72 per cent over the same period. But we know that those opposite prefer ideology to evidence. Last week it was reported that at their party room they had members put the idea of nuclear power plants on the agenda. They're clearly keen to add to their 22 failed policies. They want another one. They want to add to the 22 failed climate and energy policies. Whether it was underwriting new coal while businesses were backing renewables or it is nuclear, we know where they are. (Time expired) Aviation Industry 46 14:55 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania My question is to the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Senator Farrell. I refer the minister to comments made last week by the minister for transport, Catherine King, when she said, regarding the government's rejection of Qatar Airways, 'I consulted colleagues prior to the decision but the decision was mine.' Earlier that day you yourself, Minister, remarked on ABC RN's Breakfast: We've been pushing the expansion of flights with a whole range of countries at the moment. … … … … I can't say that I specifically had a conversation with her, but I'm aware that her department made it clear that they were … dealing with this issue and going to make a decision about it. Can you confirm that, despite Minister King's claims she consulted with colleagues, you as this country's Minister for Trade and Tourism were not consulted prior to her making a decision? On what date did you learn that she had made the decision? 14:56 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Chandler for her question. You're correct, I was asked about this issue on Radio National last week, by that very good journalist Patricia Karvelas. Who wanted— Senator McKenzie 207825 Shout-out, PK! Senator FARRELL I0N Yes, shout-out to her. She asked me that very same question, President, and this is the answer I gave: Look, I can't say that I specifically had a conversation with her, but I'm aware that her department made it clear that they were, you know, dealing with this issue and going to make a decision about it. I note that Minister King was in fact asked this question in question time in the other place today. She said very clearly, 'I consulted with relevant colleagues as to the normal proper process.' But can I make it very clear— Senator McKenzie 207825 He consulted, Don. Senator FARRELL I0N Senator McKenzie, it was Minister McCormack who made the very, very same decision that Minister King has made. This is what Minister King said, 'Can I make it very, very clear yet again that the decision'— Senator Birmingham H6X A point of order on direct relevance: the minister has already killed a lot of the time by repeating the same quotes that Senator Chandler had in her question. The question was: was he consulted? Does he have any knowledge of whether in fact somebody had a conversation with him or not? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, the minister was referring to the first part of the question. I will draw the minister to the second part of the question. Senator FARRELL I0N I made my position very clear on Radio National. I said: … I can't say that I specifically had a conversation with her, but I'm aware that her department made it clear— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Chandler, a first supplementary? 14:58 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania Minister, have you received any advice from your department regarding increasing flight capacity from other countries into Australia? If so, was Qatar one of those countries? 14:59 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia This government routinely has discussions with other countries and other players in the aviation sector. I, myself, launched the first Vietjet Air flight from Ho Chi Minh City to Brisbane and, of course, there are flights now from Ho Chi Minh into Perth. I also can report that, subsequent to us getting a ban lifted on route travel from China into Australia, we've now got China Southern flying into Australia. Singapore Airlines, another— The 10000 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator McKenzie 207825 What about Qatar? What are you hiding? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, I've called you over and over. I've got Senator Chandler on her feet. Senator Chandler, are you now going to a second supplementary? 15:00 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania I am, President. Can you confirm for the record, Minister, that you and your department in fact recommended to the minister for transport that she grant the Qatar request to help deliver more flights, more seats, more freight capacity and cheaper airfares? 15:00 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I can confirm, Senator Chandler, that this government is serious about repairing all of the damage that you lot did to the tourism sector in the two or three years— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator Chandler? Senator Chandler 264449 I have a point of order, President, on relevance. My question did not make any reference to the previous government. It was very specifically about the advice provided from the department. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Chandler, I'm going to remind the minister of your question. Minister, can you get to Senator Chandler's question? Senator FARRELL I0N Thank you, President. Unlike the way you treated the tourism industry in this country, we have started the process of rebuilding tourism in this country and bit by bit— Opposit ion senators interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N I don't know why you want to keep talking the tourism industry down—unless your strategies while in government were part of a general strategy to undermine the tourism industry. We don't want it undermined. We want to rebuild the tourism industry that you sought to destroy. (Time expired) Senator Wong 00AOU I ask that further questions be placed on notice. BUDGET 47 BUDGET Consideration by Estimates Committees 47 15:02 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Pursuant to standing order 74(5), I seek an explanation from the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Gallagher, as to why the following questions on notice remain unanswered: SQ23-001600, SQ23-001607 and SQ23-001606. 15:03 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I'm able to update Senator Ruston on those matters. I understand that those three questions are still with the department and have not been received by the minister's office at this stage. They are being chased. On all the other matters, answers that I think were outlined to my office earlier have been tabled and emailed to Senator Ruston's office. Senator Ruston didn't refer to those, but a number have come through today. Our government have received 2,573 parliamentary questions on notice in the Senate and has answered 97.5 per cent of them. We've also received 19,000 estimates questions on notice and have answered 93 per cent of them, with all answers submitted from October 2022 and all but one from February. Parliamentary questions on notice have increased from an average of less than 1,000 per year from 2016 to 2020 to 2,200 in the first year of the Albanese government. Senate estimates questions on notice have increased from 11,700 in 2017 to 2019 to more than 18,000 in the first year of the Albanese government. The Morrison government had nearly 1,000 unanswered questions on notice when it left government, some dating back to October 2019, and many Morrison government ministers returned answers from the previous round of estimates while the next round was underway. In short, we are doing everything we can to answer the questions that senators have asked, but departments essentially have been inundated with questions and are working through them. I think those statistics, particularly the fact that we've answered 97.5 per cent of parliamentary questions and 93 per cent of all estimates questions—19,000 of them—shows how seriously we take the issue of transparency and accountability to the parliament. 15:05 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the explanation provided by Senator Gallagher. Once again, we have a government who continue to keep throwing back to times past about things that have happened in the past instead of actually facing up to the fact that it is they who are in government now. It is they—the Albanese Labor government—who have not been providing the answers to the questions. Interestingly, too, whenever you look at the questions that remain unanswered, they always seem to have a particular focus on areas that the government clearly doesn't want any transparency or accountability around. Before I go into some of those issues around transparency and accountability for the areas that I think are tremendously important and that they're failing to provide information on, I would point out that, over the last few days—and I mean a few days—we have seen hundreds of answers to questions on health and aged care for which we have been asking for a long period of time. Lo and behold, when we start making threats about coming into this place and demanding an explanation about why questions haven't been answered, these questions arrive en masse. More than the three questions that I actually cited in my request for an explanation from the minister were actually outstanding before question time started. Just in the last hour, the government has answered questions in relation to a very, very important insulin drug called Fiasp. They've answered questions in relation to 60-day dispensing. They've answered questions in relation to Medicare and general practitioners. Interestingly, it is only when we, as an opposition, seek to have some accountability and transparency from those opposite that they actually come through and provide the answers to questions. But they still haven't provided answers to questions that, really importantly, focus on mental health and the mental health policies of this government, which have been an absolute retrograde step in terms of the support that Australians are receiving for their mental health. It's quite interesting. A government that was elected on the platform of transparency is quite happily hiding behind the fact that it's not going to answer questions and then comes in here and starts complaining about the numbers of questions being asked by the opposition. Well, do you know what? We probably wouldn't have to ask so many questions if you just answered the questions that were put to you in the first place. We still have hundreds of questions that remain unanswered. As I've said, today we've seen an increase in the number of those questions answered in the Health and Aged Care portfolio area, but they still have failed to answer questions on the very important issue of mental health. It also flies in the face of the transparency role that this parliament and this chamber particularly have to perform in making sure that we have scrutiny. If you don't answer the questions, it's really very hard for anything to be scrutinised. As I said, there are still three really important questions on notice in relation to mental health that remain unanswered. During the COVID pandemic, we saw a significant increase in the number of challenges that Australians were facing around their mental health. That was why we put in place the additional sessions, increasing them from 10 to 20 Medicare subsidised sessions for people suffering from mild to severe mental health conditions. The first act of the new Minister for Health and Aged Care was to slash those sessions in half. That's despite the fact that just about every agency that looks after the mental health of Australians had been saying for months and months beforehand that, now that we'd gotten through the worst of COVID, the biggest challenge affecting Australians' mental health was cost-of-living pressures. They were seeing an ever-increasing number of people presenting with mental health challenges and, at the very same time, this government chose to cut mental health sessions. The three questions that remain unanswered relate to things like the minister having called a mental health forum in January 2023 to engage stakeholders about the ways in which the government could develop new policy to support Australians who were struggling with the mental health challenges that were confronting them at the time. We asked questions around what was discussed at that round table, who was invited, what the outcomes were and the process by which those outcomes were going to be delivered. To the best of my knowledge, and in discussion with stakeholders, which is something that we do in opposition—we actually engage stakeholders; we don't just hide behind the department and refuse to speak to people—to date, some nine months later, not one outcome has been delivered as a result of that round table. There has not been one change when it comes to supporting people with mental health issues, despite this really cruel cut in the number of sessions people are able to access. And we have not seen the promises that this minister made at the time about coming forward with a new mental health policy that he believed was going to be better than the better-access policy that was put in place by the previous coalition government—one that was providing Australians with the extra supports they needed to make sure they were dealing with the mental health challenges that were being forced upon them by the extraordinary cost-of-living pressures we currently see. I can assure you that the cost-of-living pressures Australians are facing are only getting worse. Every day we see greater stress on mortgages, greater stress on energy bills, greater stress when people go to the supermarket to buy your groceries and greater stress when it comes to just getting access to general health care. We're seeing a reduced number of people being able to access bulk billing. We know it continues to plummet under this government. The combined effect of this stress is that people are seeking help for their mental health way more than they have been previously. So, once again we are talking today about the fact that this government doesn't want to come into this place and provide answers in relation to really serious issues. The questions have been asked, and all they're happy to say is, 'Well, the previous government asked a whole heap of questions, and we've answered a certain percentage of them.' Well, you may have answered a certain percentage of them in the last few days or in the last hour, but you haven't answered the questions that I think are tremendously important to Australians. Another one of the questions that remains unanswered is around the details around consultation. The one thing that I think you could say epitomises this government is their absolute lack of preparedness to consult on issues. You cannot possibly get a good outcome in relation to policy development if you don't speak to the people who are going to be impacted by those decisions. Another one of the questions that remains unanswered in terms of mental health is: who is the minister consulting with in relation to making sure the decisions that are made, the policies that are developed, are actually the right policies? Well, I suppose you don't have to consult if you're not actually going to make any changes. We also sought to find out from the government what they were putting in place for support outside of the clinical response. Where is the funding to support the clinical response? But also, what is the support funding that's going in place to support Australians outside of that clinical response? Often the clinical response is the thing that is dealt with best out of all of the things people go through when they're being challenged in terms of their health—making sure there are things in place to support them through their journey of recovery, because mental health can often be quite seriously impacted as a result of the challenges—the questions around funding for headspace, an amazing program that's helped so many young Australians deal with mental health. The minister can come in here and make all the comments she likes about percentages and the like, but what about the answers to the Australians who are currently suffering from mental health challenges who have had their supports slashed by this government? They had promises of a new policy to be put in place and, as we stand here today, on 11 September, some nine months after the minister promised a result, we have seen absolutely nothing. As I said, just in the last hour we've seen answers to questions in relation to some pretty serious issues. But the reality is that even in those answers we haven't really received any answers. I'll refer to something really important. Six months ago the government made an announcement—once again without any consultation with anybody—about speaking to the 15,000 Australians who live with type 1 diabetes and who rely on a drug called Fiasp, that they were going to, in effect, remove that drug from the market. They didn't speak to them, so, once again, there was no consultation. They made a decision that in a matter of days they were going to cut this life-changing, life-saving drug away from people who had been relying on it. Thanks to the huge advocacy for Diabetes Australia and Juvenile Diabetes Australia from so many people who came out and said to the government it was completely outrageous to rip the support mechanism out from underneath those 15,000 people. Combined with the coalition's advocacy and demands, we managed to get the government to agree to a six-month extension for those people who were on Fiasp to be able to maintain their prescriptions until 1 October 2023. It's 11 September today, so Fiasp will no longer be available for Australians in 20 days' time, unless the government changes that decision and allows Fiasp to remain on the PBS. We know that this minister is very good at leaving everything to the last minute. But what I would say is please, please, please make the decision to continue to make it available to those 15,000 people who rely on it because you are taking away a life-changing, life-saving choice for Australians who live with type 1 diabetes. It's a completely unacceptable level of uncertainty. If the minister was going to make a decision, you would have thought he would have made one by now. In fact, he has to make a decision. He has to either make a decision that it will continue to be made available or he has to make a decision that is not going to continue to be made available. The minister has within his power the ministerial discretion to continue to list this particular drug on the PBS. Don't let anybody kid you, there's absolutely a pathway to enable 15,000 Australians who rely on this drug to continue to get it. Yet here we are 20 days before it's due to expire and the minister has not provided any certainty whatsoever to those people, which I think is absolutely disgraceful. The minister has also refused to answer questions in relation to 60-day dispensing. As I've said 100 times, the coalition supports cheaper access to medicines for Australians and we support 60-day dispensing. But what we don't support is this absolutely bungled and botched way that this government have sought to implement this policy, claiming that they are delivering cost-of-living relief for Australians, when really all they're doing is making pharmacies, your community pharmacy, pay for that cost-of-living measure and, in the process of doing so, are probably forcing the most vulnerable in our communities into a situation where they will actually be worse off—not better off but worse off. We know that for those people who are vulnerable, those with chronic conditions, those in aged-care facilities, those who are older and have many medications, those who are poorer, those more likely to be relying on medications, this 60-day dispensing policy will most likely make them worse off, not better off. We asked a whole heap of questions so we could provide information to Australians, to make sure that they had the information that they needed to understand what the implications of this policy were likely to be on them. But, no, the government aren't going to worry about providing that information. Apparently Australians don't need to know about what the policy is going to deliver. The other thing we asked about was the modelling. This government came forward with a policy that was, once again, not consulted; they didn't consider the consequences. There was no consultation but there was also no modelling. The government admitted they put a policy out into the marketplace and had done no modelling on the flow-on consequences of this decision. We have sought for that information to be made available. We know that the government has subsequently, behind closed doors, gone and issued a tender for that information to be made available. Why on earth wasn't that done before the decision was made to put this policy in place? So once again those opposite just don't want to provide the details, because this government are all about headline. They have no regard and no concern for the transparency around the consequences of their actions, the details of their actions, because it is always the devil that's in the detail. Invariably, in that search for a great big headline, the search to try and deliver on a election commitment that had not been considered, we see that everyday Australians pay the price for this government's lack of transparency, lack of consideration of the consequences, lack of consultation and lack of modelling. Once again, here is a government that went to the election and said it was going to be transparent. But the day they were elected they shut the blinds down! No more transparency: 'We're not going to answer questions, we're not going to tell you what the consequences are. We're just going to go out there and shove something in your face. We're not going to speak to the people who are impacted by the decisions, we're just going to tell you what we want.' This is a government that's all about headline and has no regard for delivery. 15:20 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales On this point, it's exactly what my good friend Senator Anne Ruston said: if you went into an election promising to be more accountable, more open and more careful about what you do, this is not what you do—stand up and deliver answers at the very last minute only on compulsion. You don't have to be forced to do the right thing in this world. If we want to talk about transparency and accountability: when I was growing up my parents always said, 'Don't use words you don't know the meaning of,' and it is clear that this government do not know the meaning of this word. If they were being transparent with the public, with the people of Australia, in the lead-up to the election, they would have said: 'Our policy is don't consult, don't explain, don't think about what people are doing out there and don't care about the results. That's what we're doing.' We've heard about 60-day pharmacy and what's happening out in regional and remote Australia—to people in my part of the world, the people in rural and remote New South Wales, which I represent. What is happening is that someone sat down in a Labor Party think tank and said, 'We need to make pharmacy cheaper.' What a great idea! We've seen the problem, and everyone admits it—Senator Ruston said we all want to make pharmacy cheaper. They asked, 'How long do we want to spend on this?' The first idea that came up was to double prescription rates: 'A great idea, let's model it. No, let's not model it, we haven't got time.' This is what's happening. We're trying to get the answer to these questions about the process, but that's what it looks like from the outside. What is the consequence? In the other place and in here, pharmacists whose businesses will close and whose pharmacies will become unviable. We're not talking about affordability of medicines, we're talking about access to them. We're talking about entire communities that don't have a doctor but who might have had a pharmacy, and that's going to go. We want to understand why, so we asked the question. That's so we can sit down and so Senator Ruston and the opposition can come here and say, 'Here's another idea.' But do you know what weak-minded people do? They have an idea and they don't vary it: 'I have the solution, I know everything and I know the way to go.' This is what's happening here We are not entitled to the answers and the Australian public are not entitled to the answers. There may be a better way to do it. There may be a way to give cheaper medicine to the people of Australia and not shut down the pharmacies across rural and remote Australia. But they can't give the information and they didn't even have the modelling. They didn't even think about seeing what the consequences were, 'Because we are right.' That's what was thought across the road there; that's what was thought in government. They have probably moved on to the next thing: 'Let's have a referendum and we won't tell people what we really want; we'll just tell them it will be a lovely question and a lovely gesture. We'll come into the chamber and change superannuation—it will just be a modest change.' Government is a serious business and affects everyone here. If you can't get your governance right, and the way you handle information and the way you deal with decisions and maintain accountability right, then you can't get government right. I've sat in here and I've stood and spoken about getting our governance right—for both sides. There is no political party without sin when it comes to governance in this joint. But it is an opportunity for us to get it better, to respect the Senate and respect the processes. You don't have to hide information if you're not scared by what is behind it. And something is crook in Tobruk; something is wrong here if they're not prepared to answer simple questions about process. And if they aren't in question time, I'm sure people will go into that—to talk about what time they met someone, if they met someone or if they had a conversation about these things. This is a government that came in with a lot of ideas and no idea of how to execute them. It's like someone jumping into the driver's seat for the first time and thinking they're going down the road but hitting every second thing and saying, 'Oh, you might have done that,' or, 'That's a problem because there wasn't enough fuel in the car and the tyres weren't inflated when I took over'—all of these things. If you want to be in the driver's seat, you've got to take responsibility. So when these questions are asked, when we're talking about the people on diabetes medication who are managing their health and their plans—life and death—do they deserve more than 20 days notice? Do they deserve more than 20 days of information to make plans? I and most on this side would think that, yes, you do deserve more than 20 days to make plans about your lifestyle. But here we go: 'We're in the last four days of this sitting period before we have a five-week break from sitting, so let's drop it out now. Don't give any real scrutiny.' I'm surprised, I've got to say, Senator Ruston, that they gave us four days. This was going to be a Thursday thing, in my book: 'Let's put it out on a Thursday. That's always a good day. It's the last day we'll be here.' So we get 97 per cent of questions answered. That's fine, but those answers are coming at the very last minute, when there's little work that can be done on the information and there are real consequences to what we can do. We're seeing it right across this on so many points. But what we really want to do is come back to that governance question: if you have nothing to hide, give the answers. If the health minister is proud of this situation and confident that he went through the right processes, if they are feeling this is the right thing to do, don't hold back till the last minute. Don't be fearful that Senator Ruston is going to stand up and give you a good grilling here. As mean as she can be, she wants to put the Australian people first. She wants information that allows better decisions. She wants some clarity going forward so that people aren't sitting 20 days out, wondering what drug they're going to get next month and what effects it will have on their life. There are questions about mental health still outstanding. Is there anything more important to people now, in respect of health, when we have such economic uncertainty? We have real wages getting lower, the cost of mortgages going up and the cost of energy going up—all of these things. We're not getting answers to questions around the mental health provisions being put in place for these people, and there are stresses. Everyone suffers with mental health, but so many people in my area, the Hunter region, particularly the men—the blokes—don't want to talk about it or address it, because they're tough. Too many times, that ends in horrible circumstances. There have been incidents of self-harm, family breakdown and DV because of this. There's more than one victim. We're asking a few questions on mental health, and I think Senator Ruston said that the answers are still outstanding. As we move forward and look at a governance procedure to improve government, can we just ask that when these questions are asked that they're answered at a time where we can do things to make a better Australia? I can't think of anyone here, individually, that doesn't want a better Australia but, collectively, we suck at it. We get behind our little banners and wave our little flags, and we don't make decisions in the best interests of the country. We sit over there and talk about our team and your team and who said this or that. Put the information out there. If the information is in the public interest, we will always make better decisions. Let's get the rest of these questions—93 per cent, 97 per cent or 90 per cent, I don't care what. Let's get to 100 per cent. Let's get them on time. Let's enable a proper conversation so we can see why things were done. Let's start a conversation across the chamber and out there in the world. Let's talk to stakeholders more—all of these things—so that we can say that we do consult and we do care about the results, because that's what we need to make this country better. Question agreed to. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 52 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers To Questions 52 15:29 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of all answers to all questions asked by coalition Senators during question time today. Some very good questions were asked today in question time by the coalition senators, but, rather disappointingly, the answers that were given by Labor's ministers were somewhat disappointing. It is a variation on a theme, and it's a theme that has been a trademark of this government—that is, a lack of transparency and a lack of the willingness or the ability to give answers to questions. We saw that in question time today, particularly in relation to the questions asked concerning the decision to refuse Qatar Airways additional flights to Australia. We have a pattern of behaviour with Labor ministers being opaque and using a lot of words—a lot of ums and ahs—to say nothing. That is disappointing, because this chamber exists to hold the executive to account. Whether you're a believer in states' rights or just a believer in the fundamental principles of democracy, it is an important principle that the executive be held accountable. We've seen this pattern in question time today, and my colleagues Senator Ruston and Senator Cadell have just talked about the failure of this government to answer questions placed on notice. Indeed, I moved a similar motion in the Senate last week concerning questions that I put on notice. As of about an hour ago, 22 of those are still outstanding, no doubt sitting either on the minister's desk somewhere or in the bowels of a government department. That is not good enough, because we're here representing the voters and the taxpayers of Australia, and it's important that the voters and the taxpayers of Australia know that their money, which funds this government and the Public Service, is being appropriately spent and that ministers and public servants are being held to account. What we've seen in question time today is a continual trend where ministers refuse to answer questions, particularly when it comes to Qatar. We can't work out what Labor are hiding here. Clearly, something is being hidden, because of the different answers that are being put forward by Labor ministers concerning that particular decision. It goes not just to the decision of Minister Catherine King but to the information leading up to the decision that was made by Minister King. Questions were put to Minister Farrell today concerning whether he and Senator Wong were consulted with and the time line. What is interesting is that no information was forthcoming. We should not be surprised by that, because Minister King and other ministers have put forward seven excuses in as many weeks as to— Senator Colbeck 00AOL I thought it was nine. Senator McGRATH 217241 It might be up to nine, Senator Colbeck. There may have been nine excuses as to why this Labor government refused the application by Qatar Airways. By the way, the point of the application by Qatar Airways to have additional flights to Australia is to ensure that there are cheaper flights. This is a cost-of-living issue. This is all about ensuring that the consumers in Australia can have a choice when it comes to who they fly with, and having greater choice means that the market works and that flights actually go down in price. Otherwise, it looks like the Labor government is running a protection racket for Qantas Airways, and it would be disappointing if a political party were running a protection racket for one particular airline. We've heard everything from human rights concerns to protecting Australian jobs to decarbonisation to the application not being in the national interest to Qantas having bought new airliners to the idea that our aviation industry could be destroyed if Qantas weren't profitable to the statement that Qatar Airways have unused access right now—all sorts of different reasons. Minister King had an absolute car crash of a press conference last week. She was all over the shop when it came to not being able to answer questions, and that trend continued in question time today—that the Labor ministers are unable to answer basic questions. Quite frankly, they are taking the mickey. 15:34 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania I'm really pleased to be able to speak today in regard to aviation in this country, but I will say before I continue that on the Labor side of parliament we let our ministers make decisions. We don't have a prime minister who comes in, takes over, makes himself a minister and forgets to tell the ministers that that's what he's doing. We actually let our ministers make decisions. It might be timely to remind our colleagues opposite that requests for additional capacity for airlines are made routinely by governments around the world, including by Australia, and sometimes these requests aren't granted, including when they were in government. In the case of Qatar's request, the minister determined that it was not in Australia's national interest to grant their request. It was the minister's decision, just like it was when Mr McCormack was minister. He made decisions. That's how it works. It is interesting that those opposite, since they've been in opposition, have developed a level of suspicion that, I hesitate to say, I think verges on near-paranoia. Everything's a little 'gotcha' moment. They try to make everything a 'gotcha' moment, but they're not doing that well in that regard either. I'm sure the minister's aware—we're all aware—that there are some businesses and airlines who would like to have made a different decision. But she is the minister, and it is her right to make the decision, just like Mr McCormack made the decision when he was minister. Capacity is going up in Australia. Cathay Pacific, China Southern and Singapore Airlines have all announced more flights. I remind people that Qatar Airways can operate as many flights as it wants to to our secondary gateways, including Adelaide, Darwin, Canberra, Cairns and the Gold Coast. It could even fly to Hobart, the capital of my and Senator Duniam's state, but it doesn't choose to do that. It's important to note that, regardless of who is in government, it's not normal practice to delve into all the factors that are part of the national interest when making these decisions. Those opposite took that view when they were in government. We take that view. We don't do that when we talk about international investment through the FIRB, for example. We particularly do not do it when it comes to foreign investment by governments. Having said that, Minister King outlined in a television interview last week a number of considerations that went into the decision. Not all decisions are made on just one factor. I can't believe that those on that side worry that there might be more than one factor that helped make the decision. That's illogical to me. If you've got more issues come in, then those issues help make the decision. Minister King mentioned what's happening with the international aviation market with COVID recovery, capacity coming back into the system and the impact any decisions would have on jobs in the long term. It's also the usual course of action for the government to consult with Australian airlines, including Qantas. Qantas are not my best mates. I object to the fact that they took all that JobKeeper money and didn't give it to the people that really needed it there. I find that completely immoral. But I will say this: what if we hadn't consulted with Qantas? We know what those opposite would have done. They would have jumped up and down. But because we did consult with Qantas, they jump up and down too. As I've said, the request before the minister was for a doubling of Qatar's flights under their bilateral international aviation service agreement. It was four times more than has ever been granted before. Let's make that clear so that people listening know what we're actually talking about. Qatar could still increase its flights into any of Australia's regional secondary airports—into Cairns, into Gold Coast. I'm sure there'd be lots of people that want to go to the Gold Coast or Darwin or even Hobart. We're doing very well in regard to tourism in Hobart, I understand. If the opposition are trying to suggest that Qantas received some kind of special deal, then I suggest they take a good look in the mirror. I do not forget that it was that side, when they were in government, that gave $2 billion to Qantas without any strings attached. That's what I call a special deal. 15:39 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania It's a great pleasure for me to rise and take note of answers to questions asked by coalition senators to ministers of the government today. We see more of the same from government ministers—same old Labor, not prepared to take responsibility for their actions, trying to blame somebody else—and we've just seen that in the last contribution, talking about somebody else, about anything but the government. Don't talk about what the government's done. Blame someone else. Deflect. And don't mention anything to do with any of the decisions the government's made, because they're a government of broken promises, and question time today proved that yet again. We didn't talk about power prices today, although it was mentioned by one of the government ministers that renewable energy's cheaper, and that's why they're going after it. But that doesn't explain why power prices are going up. They promised a $275 cut in power prices, but they're delivering higher. They promised higher real wages, but they're delivering lower real wages. In fact, real wages are not keeping up with the rate of inflation. They promised lower cost of living, but they're delivering higher. They promised lower housing costs, and they're delivering higher. So, this is a government of broken promises. This is a government that promised it would be open and transparent. And what are they delivering? The exact opposite—another broken promise. It's a theme that's developing. The Australian people don't believe them either. They said we would spend more on space. That's what the now Deputy Prime Minister said we should do: we should spend more on space. What do they do? They secretly cut $1.2 billion from it. We've seen the emails: don't tell the Americans, keep it on the down low, don't let them in on it yet, until the last moment. Again, it's different to what they said before the election. Before the election, this government was saying we should spend more on space, and then they put a sneaky little $1.2 billion cut in the budget and don't tell our most important allies. Then we come to Qantas—seriously: nine different reasons as to why they can't increase Qatar flights into this country. And what do they want to talk about? They want to talk about Michael McCormack. Now, Michael McCormack did make a decision. He made a decision at a point in time, several years ago. But as Rod Sims, the former head of the competition commission, says, 'If not now, when? 'This is the best time. We're trying to expand the market. We're trying to increase flights into Australia. This is the best time to do it. When is a better time? When? That's the theme from Mr Sims. But of course, no—no transparency. Apparently the trade minister wasn't consulted; the tourism minister wasn't consulted. Of course, that brings us back to another broken promise, from the tourism minister. The tourism industry were led to believe that they were going to get a huge increase in funding. What does the government do? It cuts $36 million out of the marketing budget for Tourism Australia—$36 million, 20 people gone. So, at a time when the minister claims that we're trying to increase the number of people coming to Australia, nobody's hearing our message. Why? Because the government cuts $36 million out of the marketing budget—another broken promise. The tourism industry thought they were going to get a huge increase in funding but no, they didn't. They weren't told the funding that was going to put into other things was coming out of their own marketing budget, at a time when the minister claims we're trying to increase the number of people coming in. So, what do they do? They cut the marketing budget and they won't let any more aircraft come in. It doesn't sound to me like they're trying to increase tourism into the country. It sounds like they've got a deal going with their airline mates, with Qantas. And of course, they don't want to answer the question. All they want to do is talk about the coalition and what's happened in the past. (Time expired) 15:44 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria It was interesting to listen to the contributions by senators this afternoon. I think it's also always worth correcting the record. Senator CICCONE 281503 Yes, it is very important, Senator Cadell—always worth correcting the record. The Albanese government has, since it's come in, had a regular and enduring dialogue with our partners, particularly the United States, on a range of issues, and this does include space. As a matter of courtesy, Senator Colbeck, ahead of the announcement that we made, the US was informed about the program not actually proceeding. Since coming to government, we've had to make very tough decisions about the state of our books before us to find $40 billion in savings so that we can begin to rein in the deficit the coalition left when they left government. We also had to tackle inflation, put downward pressure on interest rates and start the hard work to address the $1 trillion of debt that we inherited from those opposite. But those opposite just seem to want to forget that part of history. I'm sure they would have reacted in the same way that we have should it have been the other way around. As we continue to repair the budget, the government has announced it will not be proceeding with the previous government's National Space Mission for Earth Observation program. The Minister for Industry, Science and Technology has been upfront and very transparent about that. While there is some disappointment with the decision, it is understandable. It's important to emphasise that no tenders have been put to market and no commercial contracts have actually been signed. The Morrison government announced this program back in March 2022, just weeks out from the last election. If those opposite think that this program was so important, why did they leave it to the last few months of their tenure? It was for the same reason that they waited nine months to announce the modern manufacturing grants and then announced them in the shadow of the 2022 election campaign. Let's also not forget that they voted no to Labor's $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund, which the minister has said will open the door to the Australian space companies to apply for funding. The government recognises that the space sector can make a valuable contribution to Australia's modern economy. We're about announcements and we're about deliverables, unlike those opposite when they were in government in the last term. The space sector can be an essential ingredient for our nation to achieve greater economic complexity, supporting adjacent industries from agriculture to resources all the way through to advanced manufacturing, which we need to do a lot of in this country. Space can also play a significant role in developing Australia's emerging critical technologies like quantum, artificial intelligence, robotics and others. These are priority areas this government wants to invest in, and that is why we've created the National Reconstruction Fund: to address those significant shortfalls. Space both leverages and creates markets for these technologies, feeding into their development for the benefit of all industries and for the wellbeing of our community. While it might be the glamour stories like rocket launches that grab headlines, we know businesses powering the Australian space industry are getting on with the job of developing skills and technology that help Australians every day. Whether this is in deploying technology to track bushfires from orbit or developing autonomous space systems with applications in mining and agriculture, the space industry is delivering for Australians, and the Albanese government wants to back that practical work. It's this work and the work of companies like Fleet Space Technologies. Fleet's network of mini-satellites and ground sensors is manufactured in Adelaide, helping the mining sector to conduct mineral exploration activities more quickly, safely, affordably and with minimal environmental impact. Fleet also run inhouse programs to train up the next generation of STEM talent from a range of backgrounds. These are the kinds of practical applications of space technology that we really need to get on board with and back. One of our first acts as government was to announce the approval for NASA to launch a series of rockets from the Arnhem Space Centre in the Northern Territory, a historic moment for the space industry here in Australia. 15:50 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland We are in a cost-of-living crisis. Right now in this country, inflation is up six per cent. It's rising by six per cent every year, and we've got wage growth at four per cent. That means our hardworking Australians are losing two per cent every year. They are going backwards. That high inflation rate has been caused by a reckless energy policy and an ideology where renewables are apparently going to save the planet. The bird choppers, the bat choppers—all of that ridiculous stuff is somehow going to save the planet. That is hurting people where it counts the most—in their hip pocket—and I say, 'Shame on the Labor government.' Then we've got the Labor government adding more fuel to the fire, by having a rapid increase in immigration of over 400,000 people a year. That is driving up demand in the economy which is adding more to inflation which therefore means the RBA has to increase interest rates. So we've got the double whammy when it comes to living expenses of either higher rents or higher interest rates. We're coming off that fixed mortgage cliff now where people are rolling out of 2.8 per cent loans into five and 5½ per cent loans. That is hurting people, and we cannot sustain that. How did Labor deal with that at the recent budget? They didn't keep the low-income tax offset going. In the years under the coalition government, Josh Frydenberg, the former Treasurer, gave a low-income tax offset which was worth $2,000 a year to low-income earners. The Treasurer, and member for Rankin, Jim Chalmers, got rid of the low-income tax offset. If you really cared about the workers, as the Minister for Finance claimed in Senate estimates, you would be giving that rebate to the hardest working Australians of all—those people who get out of bed every day and put their nose to the grindstone. They're lucky to make ends meet. Under the coalition government, we acknowledged the hard work of those low-income earners, but the first thing the Labor government did in their budget was to increase taxes on the people who could afford it least of all, our low-income earners. I say, 'Shame on you, Labor.' To top it all off, we now find out that, rather than having greater airline competition in this country so that people can go around and travel, Labor are protecting their mates at the big end of town—Virgin, Qantas and Alan Joyce and his $10 million bonuses—so that Qantas would give the Voice advocates free flights and the Prime Minister's son access to the captain's lounge. Question agreed to. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 55 15:53 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of answers given by the Special Minister of State (Senator Farrell) to a question without notice I asked today relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice referendum. I'm going to quote from a letter to Ms Kath Gleeson, First Assistant Commissioner and National Election Manager: 'With the greatest respect, I submit that the Australian Electoral Commission has erred in the proposed content of the ballot paper to be distributed and used in the 2023 referendum, as it is unconstitutional. During a telephone conversation of Friday 8 September 2023, you informed Hugh Carter of my office that the ballot paper for the referendum is intended to be in the form of form B, as in schedule 1 one of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984. I submit that form B is unconstitutional as it only refers to the title of the proposal law, when section 128 of Australia's Constitution says that the proposed law shall be submitted to the electors.' What comprises the proposed law? Section 128 says: The proposed law for the alteration thereof must be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament … This was done by the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. Schedule 1 of that bill inserts a new chapter to the Constitution as part of the proposed law. I quoted that in my letter, as parliament approved it. The distinction I make is that the above, from the word 'chapter IX' until the words 'powers and procedures', is the proposed law that needs to be put to the electors on the ballot paper in full, not the mere title, to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. I also submit that the content of the official pamphlet is misleading, as on pages 8 and 9 the title is quoted again. I submit that, at best, this title or description is merely a statement of purpose or intention to be attributed to the proposed law and, if printed as part of the ballot paper as currently intended, would be unconstitutional as not complying with the requirements of section 128 of the Constitution to present the proposed law to the electors. With so much invested in the holding of this referendum, it is imperative that the process be uncontroversial and legally sound. To not do so invites external intervention and overview of the electoral and constitutional processes. Question agreed to. Overthrow of Chilean Government: 50th Anniversary 56 15:55 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to a question without notice I asked today relating to the overthrow of the Chilean government. Fifty years ago, Australia was involved in a coup—a coup that caused immeasurable suffering and nearly two decades of repression for the Chilean community. Under Pinochet's military dictatorship, no fewer than 3,216 people were murdered, 36,000 civilians were imprisoned and tortured, and 200,000 people were exiled. This was the result of a conspiracy cooked up by leaders in Washington, DC and in Canberra to undermine the democratically elected government because that Chilean government wouldn't fall in line with US hegemony. Twenty thousand Chileans moved to Australia on the back of the brutality of the Pinochet regime. These were people who were directly persecuted by the regime and who now call Australia home. Their stories are harrowing. Maria Eugenia Jimenez's entire family was persecuted: her brother tortured, her parents imprisoned, and she herself beaten for being a student before being forced to flee Chile. Isabel Espinosa Galleguillos was detained on the day of the coup in the factory where she worked. She was pregnant at the time and was severely beaten, causing the loss of her baby. These are but a handful of the stories of the nearly 300 Chilean Australians who have signed an open letter calling on our government to acknowledge Australia's role in such an utter human disaster. Most people in this country know nothing of ASIS and ASIO's secret operations in Chile. Australia supported the CIA, who were working against the democratically elected Allende government. Australia's involvement remains shrouded in secrecy due to the undemocratic oversight of intelligence in this country. Even today, Australia and its government value secrecy over democratic transparency. Chilean Australians have been seeking documents on Australia's role in the coup and have been blocked at every single turn. Requests for the release of the documents are responded to with a simple statement that their release could cause damage to the reputation of the Commonwealth or, indeed, could cause damage to international relations. But in reality it is far more damaging to the reputation of Australia on the world stage that its government remains unable to recognise or to apologise for its role in the coup. Even the US has declassified most of the documents related to the coup. So many questions remain 50 years later. What could possibly have justified Australia's role in overthrowing a democratically elected government on the other side of the planet? What could have justified installing a murderous dictator whose legacy is loss, suffering and pain? Why was there an ASIS station set up in Santiago? Why did ASIO personnel masquerade as immigration officers in the embassy? Why was ASIO recording and spying on Chilean refugees in Australia over one year after the coup? Why is Adriana Rivas, a secretary to the Chilean dictatorship secret police, who is wanted on charges of kidnapping and detained in Australia, yet to be extradited by the Attorney-General to Chile? Reports abound of other members of the secret police residing in Australia, only doors down from Chileans who have taken refuge in our country—the same country that assisted in the coup. What, indeed, of the Mino-Logan brothers, who had been accepted for humanitarian passage to Australia and then—surprise, surprise—were discovered and taken into custody by the secret police? The Australian Greens express our solidarity with the people of Chile today and will continue to push our government to own its role in the overthrow of democracy. Question agreed to. NOTICES 56 NOTICES Presentation 56 BUSINESS 57 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 57 16:01 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That private senators' bills be considered this week as follows: (a) on Wednesday, 13 September 2023—Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Amendment Bill 2023; and (b) on Thursday, 14 September 2023—Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Domestic Reserve) Bill 2023. Question agreed to. NOTICES 57 NOTICES Postponement 57 16:01 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. I note that no senator has asked for a vote on any postponement. DOCUMENTS 57 DOCUMENTS Makarrata Commission 57 Order for the Production of Documents 57 16:02 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales At the request of Senator Nampijinpa-Price, I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) orders for production of documents nos 281 and 282 agreed by the Senate on 7 August 2023, requiring the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Australians to table documents in relation to Makarrata and the Makarrata Commission, has not been complied with, and (ii) the Minister for Indigenous Australians, in her response to the orders, made a claim of public interest immunity on the basis that it would breach confidential Cabinet deliberations; (b) rejects the public interest immunity claim made by the Minister for Indigenous Australians noting that a claim cannot be made simply because a document has the word 'Cabinet' in or on it; and (c) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Australians to comply with the orders by no later than midday on Tuesday, 12 September 2023. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question before the Senate is that the motion standing in the name of Senator Nampijinpa Price, moved by Senator Cadell, regarding compliance with an order for the production of documents be agreed to.

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

25 AYES Antic, A. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. 29 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

BUSINESS 58 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 58 16:09 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Allman-Payne from 11 September to 14 September for personal reasons. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 59 DOCUMENTS Parole Applications 59 Order for the Production of Documents 59 16:10 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by no later than 5 pm on 22 September 2023: (a) a breakdown of approved grants of parole since 1 July 2022 with the following information: (i) the state in which the person was imprisoned, (ii) any previous grant of parole (if known), (iii) offence(s) committed, (iv) date of sentencing, (v) duration of sentence given including, (A) length of any non-parole period, and (B) total duration of sentence, (vi) date parole was granted, (vii) whether the grant of parole related to sexual assault, child abuse or child pornography offences, (viii) whether the decision to grant parole was made by a departmental official or the Attorney-General, and (ix) if the decision was made by the Attorney-General, whether the decision followed the recommendation provided by the department; and (b) the total number of decisions to deny parole since 1 July 2022. 16:10 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland by leave—I move an amendment to the motion as circulated: Omit "1 July 2022" (wherever occurring), substitute "1 January 2021". The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I put the question: that the amendment moved by the minister be agreed to. Question agreed to. The DEPUTY PRESIDE 287062 The question before the Senate is that the motion standing in the name of Senator Cash and moved by Senator Cadell, as amended by the minister, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:15]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

36 AYES Antic, A. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 17 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

Australian Secret Intelligence Service 60 Order for the Production of Documents 60 16:18 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, by no later than 4.30 pm on 14 September 2023: (a) all diplomatic cables between the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) station in Santiago and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade; (b) all diplomatic cables between the ASIS station in Santiago and the office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs; (c) all diplomatic cables between the ASIS station in Santiago and the office of the Prime Minister; (d) post-operations reports from ASIS activities in Santiago between 1970 and 1973; and (e) all communications between the ASIS agent who remained in Chile following the closure of the station and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, as de-identified documents. 16:18 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Australia stands with the people of Chile in commemorating the tragedy of Chile's military coup and recognising the widespread suffering, torture, enforced disappearances and human rights abuses that occurred during Chile's brutal, 17-year dictatorship. We also recognise the significant contributions made by the Chilean diaspora in Australia. This motion seeks documents that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has been advised would not be in the public interest to release, on the basis that doing so could reasonably be expected to prejudice Australia's national security, defence or international relations. There is a process under the Archives Act 1993 for access to Commonwealth records, and whether records will be made available to the public is a decision for the Director-General of the National Archives. The government will not be supporting the motion moved by Senator Steele-John. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question before the Senate is that the motion moved by Senator Steele-John for an order for the production of documents be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:23]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

14 AYES Babet, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 29 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water 61 Order for the Production of Documents 61 16:26 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 326. Leave granted. Senator DUNIAM 263418 I amend the motion to change the reporting date to 16 October 2023. I move the motion as amended: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than midday on Monday, 16 October 2023: (a) a list of the dates, since 31 May 2022, on which the Minister for the Environment and Water has formally met with the First Nations Heritage Protection Alliance to discuss Indigenous cultural heritage protection laws; (b) a copy of the second Options Paper on 'First Nations cultural heritage protection reform' that was scheduled, in mid-2022, to be completed by early 2023; (c) a list of the dates, since 1 July 2022, on which the Minister for the Environment and Water has formally met with interested members of the community to discuss Indigenous cultural heritage protection laws; (d) a list of the attendees and the dates, since 1 July 2022, of meetings between the Minister for the Environment and Water and business and industry representatives to discuss Indigenous cultural heritage protection laws; (e) a list of the dates, since 1 July 2022, on which the Minister for the Environment and Water has formally met with the National Farmers Federation to discuss Indigenous cultural heritage protection laws; (f) a list of the dates, since 1 July 2022, on which any member of the staff of the Minister for the Environment and Water has formally met with the National Farmers Federation to discuss Indigenous cultural heritage protection laws; (g) a list of the dates, since 1 July 2022, on which any senior executive staff member of the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) has formally met with the National Farmers Federation to discuss Indigenous cultural heritage protection laws; and (h) any documents, including minutes, agendas and communiques, related to formal meetings of DCCEEW staff and the First Nations Heritage Protection Alliance since 30 September 2022. Question agreed to. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 61 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Space Industry 61 16:27 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Fawcett has submitted a proposal under standing order 75 today: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: "Labor's decision to keep Australian taxpayers and the United States in the dark about the axing of the $1.2 billion National Space Mission for Earth Observation program demonstrates yet another failure of transparency and that they do not comprehend the important role our space industry plays in Australia's scientific, economic and diplomatic future". Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 16:28 Senator FAW DYU South Australia CETT () (): I rise to address this matter of public importance because the decision made by the Albanese government to cut the funding for this program is significant in three areas which I will address: firstly, the substantive impact on Australia's space industry; secondly, the secondary impacts for areas such as defence; and, thirdly, the diplomatic impact of the decision, made without transparency, that has affected not only Australia and our defence capabilities but also our allies. To the substantive effect: the $1.2 billion National Space Mission for Earth Observation was an important program. The reason it was supported by the former coalition government was that we saw the benefit of having a sovereign satellite capability that would stretch over the next two decades. Defence, the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology saw the benefits in terms of security—particularly maritime security—weather observation, climate change, water quality assessment and environmental monitoring, as well as looking at things like disaster preparation. Importantly, what it meant was that Australia would have the funding and the investment in our own industry to be able to design and build four satellites so that we would have not only that ability to not only design the satellite payload, the satellite bus, the launch vehicle and the launch system but also the ability to tile that together and launch and operate these satellites. Not only would that serve those domestic purposes but it would also mean that we would not be a free-rider in the world of satellites and strategic data services but a contributor to our own uses and to those of our allies, including the United States. Cutting this program has built upon a pattern of behaviour by the Albanese government. In March I spoke about the fact that in their national reconstruction fund bill, space was one area they overlooked—in contrast to the coalition, who in our national manufacturing priorities made space one of the primary areas. We invested in a whole range of areas such as international space investment, the Space Infrastructure Fund, the Moon to Mars mission and Australia's first national space mission. The CEO of the Space Industry Association of Australia, James Brown, has said that the National Space Mission for Earth Observation was 'the most strategic and significant space public policy in 40 years'. ASPI's Malcolm Davis has highlighted that this decision is political, it's a short-term money grab and it ignores the long-term benefits to the economy, to defence and to our national interest. The remarks attributed to the minister's office say there's nothing to see here. They say 'there were no commercial contracts entered into'. Importantly, and this is emblematic of what it means for the space industry, the CEO of the Space Industry Association of Australia has highlighted that as a result of this cancellation, investments that were planned for Australia's space sector already being cancelled. So there will be no more commercial arrangements entered into if this is the way the Albanese government proceeds. Going to defence, we see in the media recently that a number of nations are creating capabilities to disable satellites, which means that in a conflict where we may need our own industry to be able to launch satellites with both ISR and communications packages, we will no longer have a pathway to enable them to do that in a timely manner, because this program has been cut. Lastly, on the diplomatic side, by not being transparent with the US and, importantly, by cutting this program, we've actually severed a relationship with one of our strategic partners. I notice in the speaking points were the key messages that were uncovered only through freedom of information: key message 23, subparagraph (c), from the Albanese government said 'we appreciate this likely poses challenges for Congress on appropriations and complicates your planning'. Congress, at this exact moment, is debating whether or not they pass legislation to support Australia with things like the AUKUS agreement. Given how important AUKUS is, memo to Minister Albanese: you and your decisions are not helping. 16:33 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales We see week 2 of the sitting fortnight hasn't been much better than week 1 for the coalition and their process of thinking about what it is that they bring forward as matters of public importance. It will be incremental, I assume, but you can only hope that there will be improvement over time. Senator O'Sullivan 283585 It only gets worse for you, mate. Senator AYRES 16913 We'll see whether it gets worse or it gets better, won't we? It couldn't get worse in terms of the performance of those opposite in terms of what they focus on as matters of public importance. It couldn't get worse. T 264449 Through the chair, please, Senator Ayres. Senator AYRES 16913 There were a number of difficult decisions that the incoming Albanese government had to take to deal with the legacy of record debt and deficit left by the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments—a trillion dollars in debt and nothing to show for it, much of that accumulated in a series of reckless spending decisions prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. It was a trillion dollars of debt over a decade. We as a government have been up-front and transparent both about the global economic outlook and the headwinds that Australia confronts, and indeed the decision not to proceed with certain programs, including the National Space Mission for Earth Observation program. The industry minister has been absolutely transparent about all of this—all of it. The Albanese government ensured that the United States knew that the program wouldn't proceed ahead of the announcement. In fact, that's what the documents released to the coalition demonstrate—the steps that were undertaken in an adult way, in a procedurally correct way, to make sure not only that the appropriate government officials were notified at the appropriate time but also that partners in Australia who were engaged in these programs were notified, and it was done in a programmatically specific kind of way, a way that was entirely appropriate. The carry-on from the Liberal Party about this is utterly extraordinary. The coalition characterised this as 'keeping Australian taxpayers and the United States in the dark'. Senator Fawcett just said that it 'severed the relationship'! What an extraordinarily preposterous thing to say, at a moment when the relationship between Australia and the United States is remarkably complex and deep. It is a relationship founded, in fact, by the Labor Party in government. The idea that you would say such a silly thing in the hope of getting a few column inches in one of our national newspapers just shows how cavalier your approach is—how cavalier your friends, Madam Acting Deputy President Chandler, over there in the Liberal Party, are to the national interest. This sort of smug sense of entitlement that you can say anything you want to try to damage the national interest is utterly consistent with your approach to transparency over the time. You say the wildest possible things. And there's a history here around transparency. The former energy minister—or one of the former energy ministers—Angus Taylor hid electricity price rises from Australian voters on the eve of the May election in an utterly disgraceful way. Mr Morrison's office selectively leaked his private text messages to the French president, no less, ahead of the dumping of a defence contract, in the most nakedly partisan, disgraceful effort. It's never been properly accounted for. And who could forget Mr Morrison's secret ministries? We won't be lectured about accountability and transparency, and we certainly won't be lectured about the national interest, by that lot. (Time expired) 16:38 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Investing in science is important, and the Greens think it's important for more than just a wedge between the opposition and the government. It's important as a significant policy outcome. So, while I'm supporting this matter of public importance motion today regarding the National Space Mission for Earth Observation program, I note significant concerns about the attempt to play 'gotcha' politics with science investment and funding. Cutting space programs for budget repair, which is the Albanese government's approach, doesn't make sense in the context of a financial black hole, which is also supported by the Albanese government, that is the $300 billion to $400 billion, and growing, stage 3 tax cuts, or the $368 billion, and growing, budget black hole for some nuclear submarines that are never likely to turn up. Why don't we engage in budget repair by cutting the nuclear submarine program, or by cutting the $45 billion Hunter frigates program—and not cutting it just by reducing the number of frigates but actually reducing the money that we're sending to the UK arms manufacturer? Why don't we cut the subsidies for planet-killing fossil fuels instead of attacking science and the space industry? You can bet, though, that if defence thought there was an advantage to this program then it would have quietly had the funding doubled rather than cut in the way that's happened under the Albanese government. We know that to be a serious player in space requires long-term investment to build local capacity and with it the skilled jobs, the industries and the infrastructure to succeed. Instead of doing that, cutting the Australian space force program shows a government that is literally willing to fund war and climate disaster while it withdraws critical investment in space and science. When we do space programs properly, we get information and answers that relate to some of the biggest problems we have on the planet. But then you need to listen to those answers and act on that information. Much of the information we should be responding to that we've received through Australian and other space programs is about the imminent and catastrophic impacts of climate change. The opposition arguing to fund science won't do any good if they won't listen to the answers that that science tells us, which is to keep coal and gas in the ground. We already use much of the data from Earth-observing satellites to comprehensively understand what's going on with our planet and what's going wrong with our planet—the water, land and atmosphere generally as well as the challenges by extreme weather and other disasters. So yes to holding on to these kinds of critical investments. Yes to this science, which is supported by the National Academy of Sciences. But let's not just do the science—let's then listen to it. 16:41 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I too rise to speak on Senator Fawcett's motion on the National Space Mission for Earth Observation program, and I endorse everything that he said. Hiding the truth is just as bad as telling the truth to your friends and allies, and it is the surest way to lose their trust in our relationship, particularly in relationships that are as important as AUKUS. In addition to endorsing Senator Fawcett's comments, I also want to pick up Senator Ayres's points. He admitted that this was a cost-cutting measure, but it's somewhat incongruous, because in question time we had the finance minister saying what a fabulous surplus they're going to have. The two statements do not add up. But, as a previous defence minister, I want to also add that this decision will not only impact our defence-to-defence relationship at AUKUS but also result in the degradation of defence space capability. In 2020, as the minister at the time, in the Defence Strategic Update I introduced a standalone space capability domain as a standalone defence operational domain. This is now critical and fundamental to defence operations, particularly to ADF's joint force, which relies on access to space systems and space situational awareness. The simple fact is that our potential adversaries are significantly increasing their offensive space capabilities in a range of areas, and no single nation, not even the United States, can tackle these threats on their own. Interoperability and every single nation, in terms of our friends and allies—we all have to do our own share of the heavy lifting. While this is a civilian space capability, those who have worked in this sector for some time know that, with our allies, the most successful defence and civilian space capability programs are those that operate together. This program that the Labor Party have surreptitiously cut for budgeting purposes, as Senator Ayres has now admitted, will have a significant implication on defence as well. One of the things that the war in Ukraine has proven is how irregular warfare tactics work in the modern era. Part of that involves Russia operating in the grey zone in space when it comes to their tactics to block an impact on satellite systems of not just Ukraine but also their allies. So we are now well and truly in an era of irregular warfare in space, and we and our allies must adapt to this. As I've said, that not only requires defence capabilities. It also requires, increasingly, defence to work with civilian space capabilities. To develop the right countermeasures, the threats must be identified and we must have redundancies in our defence systems in case they are taken out. Amongst the grey-zone space threats we now confront are cyberattacks against space services, attacks on commercial space capabilities during conflict, and the conduct of proximity operations. That may potentially be to coerce those you're in direct conflict with, as in the case of Ukraine. Alternatively, some of our potential adversaries could do that to us to intimidate us—something short of war. Cyberattacks against the United States satellite firm Viasat ahead of the Russian invasion of Ukraine are an example of that. So cyberspace is a soft underbelly of our global space networks. Far from cutting the services for which we have gone into joint arrangements with the United States, we should continue to increase them. Coming back to defence, as the minister I ensured that the Morrison government significantly increased investment in Defence space capabilities, including a plan for a network of satellites to provide an independent and sovereign communications network. But, as I said, for Defence the civilian satellite networks are also incredibly important. I also implemented an enhanced space control program and investment in space situational awareness, including sensors and tracking systems, and I also ensured that Defence worked more closely with the space industry here in Australia and overseas and with other relevant government agencies including, most importantly, the Australian Space Agency. Again, we stumped up an extra $7 billion for these space capabilities for Defence. Not only have Labor axed space as a priority in their National Reconstruction Fund, whereas it had been a priority under the Modern Manufacturing Initiative, which was an initiative of ours; they are now— (Time expired) 16:46 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I thank Senator Fawcett for his matter of public importance, which One Nation supports. The Albanese government's decision to terminate the National Space Mission for Earth Observation, NSMEO, will cost jobs in North Queensland. Abbot Point is a perfect location for a space facility. It's close to the equator and offers consistent beautiful Queensland weather, providing for a reliable launch. A North Queensland space industry and launch facility would be able to capitalise on the Abbot Point steel park, already gazetted and just waiting for the Iron Boomerang steel mills. An Australian Academy of Science report from 2022 called for: … investment in a home-grown Earth observation satellite program, which would design, build, launch and operate the satellites and the sensors on-board used to collect a wide range of data types. The program providing Australia with its own remote sensing capabilities, with all the jobs and expertise this would involve, was designed to reduce sovereign risk. Remote sensing is the mapping of Australia from space, providing, firstly, an emergency capability to track bushfires, floods and the usual extreme weather events; and, secondly, routine commercial mapping that would have grown Australia's productive capacity. Did the Albanese government not know what remote sensing was or the importance of having this capacity under public control rather than relying on a patchwork of private and foreign government suppliers? It's not as if we can save the money. We still need this capability somehow. The cancellation of the NSMEO follows the axing last month of the Australian spaceports program, which would have seen government funding assist in the establishment of launch facilities on Australian soil. The effect of these decisions, taken together, is to decimate the Australian space industry at a time when the industry was moving into a commercial phase. This decision is damaging regional Australia, damaging our national productive capacity, damaging our national security and reducing opportunities for career choices for our children. 16:48 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales Of course, this is an important matter of public importance because it is an opportunity for us to showcase that the government only gets out of bed each day if it is for a vested interest, and typically these vested interests are the fellow travellers that are engaged in the Labor Party's preselections and fundraising for public office. Chiefly, these are known as the trade union movement and the industry super fund movement. Any other part of the private economy, particularly a small or disruptive business, is on its own, pretty much, with this government, because the government really only responds to the policy agenda as it's been drafted for it by its favourite fellow travellers. This is no exception. At the last couple of Senate estimates I've had the opportunity to inquire about why the government has commissioned extensive reviews and has then decided to make cuts to the nation's space program. Mr Husic has made the judgement call that space is not important to this government and he has decided to cut various programs. Of course in the freedom-of-information documents that have been canvassed by the opposition it is clear that this is not an action the government is proud of. The government doesn't want the public to know—particularly, I suspect, people who live in the great state of South Australia—that the judgement has been made to axe many of the large programs. Therefore, the resulting private investment that would have accompanied public investment in the space program is not going to materialise. The consequence of that is that there will be fewer jobs and fewer opportunities in Australia, particularly, I'd hazard a guess, in the great state of South Australia. That is the consequence of these actions. South Australia has always needed all the help it can get; it is a great state, but it is a state that hasn't always had the largest private sector. Therefore, it is in desperate need of more of this type of investment. The freedom-of-information documents show that the government is too embarrassed to tell our partners in the United States that these judgements have been made, and there have been deliberate attempts to try to conceal this information revealed by the freedom-of-information process. I canvassed this in the space industry and there is great uncertainty now as to whether there can be extensive private investment in the Australian space sector, because of the ongoing uncertainty with the endless reviews. The government not only hit the ground reviewing but they basically cancelled all the initiatives that had already been established by the former government. That has meant the country doesn't have the sort of certainty we need for the promotion of private investment. It also means we're now letting down our allies. As Senator Fawcett and others have noted, this is a very unfortunate time for us to be letting our allies down, particularly when we are negotiating and engaging in a transfer of technology which is needed to power submarines and which could be used for other purposes in the future. This is a very difficult moment in our region's history, perhaps it is the most dangerous since the Second World War. We have been able to negotiate with friendly governments and with our allies the transfer of very sensitive, but very important, technologies. We don't want to be a fairweather friend and we don't want to be a jurisdiction which is unreliable; we want to be a jurisdiction which sticks to the commitments we make. Everyone knows there is great strategic advantage for the country and for our allies in properly understanding the opportunity of space. This is why we have been committed to this great endeavour for some time, and it's why it is so regrettable that endless reviews have been part of the government's approach and also that there have been these indiscriminate cuts. As I said before, the freedom-of-information documents make it very clear that the national government is embarrassed about that. 16:53 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I too rise to speak on this matter of public importance. I congratulate Senator Fawcett for bringing this matter to the attention of the Senate and to the attention of the Australian people, because this is a very important matter. Why is earth observation important? Others have talked about the environmental benefits of earth observation but for my home state of Western Australia—also the home state of my colleagues in the chamber, Senator Dean Smith and Senator O'Sullivan—earth observation is key to the economic development of Western Australia. It's key to the mining industry, in understanding what resources are where, and it's key to the agriculture industry in terms of predicting weather patterns, weather events, bushfire risk and the like. So it is absolutely key to the economic future of our home state of Western Australia, and that is why the National Space Mission for Earth Observation program, which was announced in the March 2022 budget and allocated funding, was so important. It was something that was embraced by our key ally, the United States. I think what is most disturbing and what really needs highlighting is the fact that this government, the Labor government, has treated that alliance with such disrespect. I want to quote from the FOI-ed emails directly. This is from an adviser in Minister Husic's office, issuing a direction from, apparently, the Prime Minister 's office and Minister Husic to this effect: DC Post— Washington, DC post— to notify US system under strict embargo. Only those who need to know. Note that it was an express preference from the Minister and PMO that US be notified no earlier than Wednesday AU time … Think about that for a moment. 'It was an express preference from the minister and PMO that the US be notified no earlier than Wednesday AU time.' Later in that same email it goes on to say, 'MO Husic to brief'—MO is ministerial office, so Husic's ministerial office—'caucus colleagues and select media.' When was that? It was on Wednesday. So the minister and the Prime Minister 's office are directing post to keep the US in the dark so, apparently, the minister can brief caucus colleagues and select media outlets. Does that sound like the way to handle your key geopolitical, geostrategic relationship? You are keeping the US in the dark so the minister has time to brief his caucus colleagues and media outlets. Is that really the way any government would be expected to handle such a sensitive and important matter as space industry development. And it was a commitment made by the Australian government. That should never be forgotten. We should not walk away from our commitments in such a cavalier fashion. The post in Washington was clearly disturbed by the government's action when they send back an email a bit later on and they use these words—remember, these are diplomats, and in my experience diplomats always choose their words very carefully. How did the diplomats respond? They said: 'Our strong feeling is that we need to brief the NSpC this evening.' For those listening, what is the NSpC? It's the National Space Council, a policy body of the White House. So the diplomatic mission is coming back after being told to keep this quiet to give the minister time to brief caucus and select media outlets. Meanwhile, our diplomatic mission in Washington is saying, 'No, we should be telling the National Space Council this evening.' This is an inappropriate use of power. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 The time for discussion has expired. Economy 66 16:59 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 A letter has been received from Senator Roberts: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: Australia has moved into a per-capita recession caused by net-zero policies, and is now resorting to an immigration and student 'Ponzi scheme' to cover the damage. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the stan ding orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 16:59 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia who listens to constituents, I know life is getting worse for you and that this government doesn't care. Australia has entered a per capita recession. The total GDP is still going up on paper. Technically, the government can say that we aren't in a recession, yet on average the gross domestic product per Australian went backwards. That's a per capita recession. You are not imagining it; life is getting far worse on average for the entire country. This is not news to anyone who has recently paid a grocery docket or a power bill or tuned in to hear Philip Lowe—whether or not the Reserve Bank is going to make their lives even harder this month. It is news to the Albanese government, though, because they are more interested in telling everyone to vote for the Voice than in doing something to fix the cost of living. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has confirmed what we already knew: on average, life is only getting tougher, far tougher for Australians. The major cause of Australia's per capita recession is the UN 2050 net-zero policies that are putting a chokehold on our country. This fact is one of many that exposes the lie that wind and solar are cheapest sources of electricity. With more wind, solar and batteries on the grid than ever in history, power prices have never been higher. This is mirrored around the world in countries adopting solar and wind. The record expensive power bills bite more than once, not only when Australians hand over more money than ever to their electricity and gas companies. Power prices feed into nearly every level and part of our lives. Without cheap power, manufacturers can't produce the products we want and need at a reasonable price; farmers can't afford to pump the water that irrigates crops and keeps cattle alive; shops can't afford to keep the lights on and the doors open. So you don't just pay the price of the climate net-zero pipedream once when your power bill; you pay for it again and again and again in every other bill as well. It's irrefutable; life is getting worse for Australians, who are all having to make tougher and tougher choices around the dinner table. There has never been more proof Australians can't afford the UN 2050 net-zero pipedream. This is leading to huge cracks in our economy. Everyday businesses are becoming insolvent. The trend for retail spending—usually good indicator of whether households are feeling the pinch—is negative. The average cost of housing as a proportion disposal income is at 20.1 per cent, up from almost 16.5 per cent only a few years ago. The lowest-fifth of earners who hold a mortgage are spending on average nearly two-thirds of their disposal income on their loan—two-thirds of their disposal income on a house loan. All this means in real terms that our economy is getting worse for Australians yet that isn't showing up on the total GDP, which records the amount of activity in the economy. This is where the government are using their favourite Ponzi scheme, mass immigration, to cover the cracks. Listen carefully. When you let more immigrants into the country, they have to spend money on the same things we all have to like food, housing, transport, energy. All of this spending counts towards our total gross domestic product. If the total gross domestic product goes down, we enter a recession, which is an embarrassing look for the government. It's a pretty simple equation for the Albanese government: more immigrants equals more spending, which equals the total gross domestic product going up, and the government can say, 'We are not in an official recession.' That's why they're doing it, and bugger the cost to individuals. At the same time, life continues to get worse for Australians—smaller amounts of gross domestic product growth and our limited housing services have to be shared with hundreds of thousands of new immigrants. That's the per capita recession. With more people, demand increases and prices increase even more. The Albanese Labor government expects to increase our net immigration to 715,000 people over two years. That is the size of the entire Gold Coast-Tweed Heads area or 1½ Canberras arriving in just two years. Every arrival will need a bed. Every arrival will need a roof over their head. Where does the Albanese Labor government expect them to live? To which one of our overfilled schools will children go? To which overflowing hospital will they go when they get sick? The Albanese government does not care about the answers to these questions, as long as they can say, 'We're not in technical recession.' Bugger the cost to people—their lives. The solutions to the cost-of-living crisis are clear. They will just take some guts and some honesty. Abandon unaffordable climate UN 2050 net-zero pipedreams and cut immigration to zero until our essential services and housing catch up. 17:04 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia I also rise to speak on this matter of public importance. There is a lot of ground to cover, but I'll start with some economic context to the senator's remarks just made. It is not uncommon quarter-to-quarter for the per capita measure to move in this direction. In fact, it has gone backwards in one in every four quarters since records began some 50 years ago. For context, that is about 48 times out of the past 199 quarters, so we need to keep that in context. But of course there is no doubt that we are seeing the impact of high interest rates, high-but-moderating inflation and global uncertainty. These things are absolutely hitting households across Australia, including households in my state of South Australia, and our economy. At the same time, we have a rebound in population growth driven by the reopening of our economy, and the return of international students in particular. I believe that that is a good thing. It's showing up in stronger service exports, which is good for both the education and the tourism sectors in Australia. It's good in my state of South Australia. It's a good thing that the students are coming back, given the impact of the pandemic on student numbers and movements. But we also know that overseas migration won't catch up to the coalition's forecast levels until the end of the decade. Context is important in this debate. Facts in numbers are important in these debates. In terms of the implied context of this matter of public importance put by Senator Roberts—that is, that net zero is causing the sky to fall in—that is simply not true. Despite what Senator Roberts has said, the net zero transformation is a defining economic opportunity for our country and a defining economic opportunity for my home state of South Australia. With our abundance of natural resources, we as a nation have the potential to be a renewable energy superpower, and there are opportunities for our children in that. The government is absolutely committed to ensuring that we do not miss out on that potential and that opportunity, and we are working towards ensuring we have the policy settings to enable us to benefit from the economic revolution that being a part of net zero and taking serious action on climate change offer our nation. For a decade we had a government that was facing its own existential crisis about whether climate change actually existed, about whether the climate crisis on our doorstep was a real thing or not. They oversaw 22 energy policies and failed to land one of them. We saw their internal battles and leadership tensions get in the way of delivering sensible climate policy. Indeed, for more than a decade they defined themselves by being wreckers on climate action and wreckers on energy policy, ignoring the science and diving headfirst into the sand pretending that the climate crisis doesn't exist. Because of that we missed out on a decade of progress and work. Our government is onto fixing it because our government sees climate action as being necessary not just for the future of our planet, not just necessary for preserving a future for our children and grandchildren, but because there are economic opportunities in it. There is economic potential in my home state of South Australia. In the May budget we included an additional $4 billion to help get our transition to renewable energy moving, taking our government's total investment to more than $40 billion. Investing in renewables is good not just for the future of the planet but for Australia's regions. It's good in South Australia. In towns like Whyalla, the potential of a world-leading hydrogen power plant will provide not only energy for future generations in our state but economic opportunity as well. Australians want to see action on climate change. They didn't spend the past 10 years having an internal debate about whether it was real. They didn't spend the past 10 years torn up in knots about it. Every South Australian I speak to says, 'This is science. This is fact. This is coming down the line.' But for a decade we had a government which refused to engage, which couldn't land even one of 22 energy policies. There are economic opportunities here. The sky is not falling in. The economic potential is huge for South Australia and for our country. 17:09 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I know the Prime Minister hasn't been to a petrol station recently. He doesn't seem to know the price of petrol. But I have, and I know that in recent months many Australians have. They would have seen that diesel often now is at $2.30 a litre. How is it that everything seems to have gone up in price since we committed to this crazy idea of net zero? A fundamental fact is that if you commit to something like net zero you're not going to drill for oil, you're not going to increase the production of oil and gas, and so being able to fill up at the petrol pump is going to go up in price, just as it has. There are some people that haven't been silly enough to sign up to this agenda, or at least not silly enough to do anything to get close to it. Countries in the Middle East, like Saudi Arabia, and Russia are not doing anything to get near it, so they are still drilling for oil and gas. Thanks to our stupid decisions here, in Western countries, we have given them a blank cheque to determine the price of oil, the price of energy, across the whole world. That is why we're seeing our petrol prices go up—because Saudi Arabia and Russia are restricting supply at the moment. Brent crude oil prices have gone back over $90 for the first time since the height of the Ukraine war. That is happening because we in the free world are not taking the decision to produce our own energy resources. We're therefore dependent for our basic energy needs on dictatorial and authoritarian regimes. That is what is happening. And the price of energy influences the price of almost everything, because energy is pretty much what makes everything. There is one thing I'd love people who advocate for net zero to say in this debate. I'd like someone just to map out some basic things about how we're going to do things in a net zero world. Take, for example, the manufacture of something called urea. Urea is a fertiliser that comes from natural gas. It is responsible for feeding half the world's population. Half the world's food comes from the fertilisers made from urea. It is made from natural gas. How are we going to make urea—how are we going to grow food for half the world's population—if we have net zero and we don't have gas? It's very easy to say 'net zero'. It's very easy to say, 'Let's have net zero emissions.' It's easy, isn't it? Well, it's not, because almost everything we grow, make and do in our society relies on the use of fossil fuels. Without them, people will starve. Without fossil fuels, we won't be able to go anywhere. Without fossil fuels, a lot of people will not have jobs. So an answer to those basic questions would be really helpful. There's something you might notice, Mr Acting Deputy President, when you go down to the shops now. Obviously, everything's gone up in price, but, if you look closely, you'll see that those food items that require a lot of energy have gone up further in price. Things like milk, cheese, some forms of processed meat—they've all gone up further in price. How expensive is cheese these days? It's unbelievable. Again, the Prime Minister probably hasn't realised, but I certainly see it when I'm making some hamburgers for the kids and buying the cheese slices. It's ridiculously expensive. Why? Because those products require a lot of energy. It's a large manufacturing process and there's a lot of refrigeration needed to produce dairy products, so they're going up in price. This is the craziest policy that governments have ever adopted. We want to fundamentally change how we make, grow and travel within a generation. The year 2050, the year by which they want to have net zero emissions, is just 27 years away. We're trying to restrict our emissions, pushing up our costs, but what we do here only really matters if other countries do the same, if the rest of the world acts as well. What's happened since the world signed up to net zero emissions at Glasgow in late 2021? Global carbon emissions have gone up, not down. Ours haven't; we're trying to do the right thing, so called. But China, India—Russia, as I've already mentioned—are laughing all the way to the bank. That's why, fundamentally, net zero emissions is a fraud and a scam. It is a total fraud and a scam which allows countries like China, India and Russia, who don't play by the rules in the world game, to get off scot-free and then take the jobs from Western countries. This is a massive transfer of wealth and prosperity from our nation—our country, our people—to those countries that never have and will not play by the rules. We are absolute mugs to fall for this scam but we're doing it time and time again. Eventually it will end in tears, because nations won't be able to reach net zero emissions. What will happen then? People will be very, very angry. 17:14 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria I rise today to support Senator Roberts's matter of public importance. The Labor Party government came to power promising Australians they had a plan. They had plans alright! They had a plan to address the cost of living. They had a plan to lower the cost of power. They had a plan to boost productivity. But after almost 18 months of them being in office it is now clearly evident to every single Australian out there that the government did not have a credible plan at all, unfortunately. I wish they did. Growth is up slightly, but inflation is higher. Our dollar just doesn't go as far as it should. They have managed to create a one-step-forward, two-steps-backwards economy where people are becoming poorer despite the rhetoric of economic growth. The growth itself is not keeping pace with the huge increase in immigration which has been authorised by this government. We had 1.5 million new migrants in five years. Do know what that sounds like? It's a Ponzi scheme. It's a pyramid scheme. That's what it is. We are in a per capita recession. There are some watching this broadcast right now that might not understand or even care to understand what a per capita recession is, but they understand what an unaffordable power bill is. They understand what $300 a week or worse on a grocery bill is. They understand what $1,100 or more extra per month on a mortgage is. They understand what paying more than half of their income on rent is and what it feels like. Having stumbled into office with 32.6 per cent of the vote, our Prime Minister and Treasurer are now hiding their ineptitude behind a surge of new arrivals, hoping that these new immigrants will disguise our persistent and underlying economic problems. Talk about adding fuel to a fire—that's what that is. Not only does the surge in immigration fail to fix our economy; the surge creates brand-new economic problems in the form of increased pressures on health, housing, education, transportation et cetera. We have Minister Bowen spending billions rewiring the electricity grid to fit his obsession with net zero. We have Minister Burke rewriting industry agreements in his obsession with industrial relations. We have Treasurer Chalmers, whose main contribution to the Australian economy is a 6,000-word essay on reimagining capitalism, even as he reimagines our nation into a per capita recession, unfortunately for us. What's our Prime Minister doing? He is obsessively distracted with the divisive constitutional change that half the country or more doesn't even want. That's what he's doing. For the sake of all Australians, I urge the government to stop fiddling while this nation burns. Stop propping up the economy with international arrivals. Manage the economy with a coherent, economically responsible plan. If you want to encourage economic growth, we need the government to be truthful with the Australian people. We all know that our electricity grid is a house of cards and that net zero is a pipedream. The wind and solar racket has ensured that Australia is more dependent on China, because that is where most of the solar panels come from. They also control most of the world's mines of cobalt—a key mineral used in solar, wind, batteries et cetera. We send our coal and other minerals to China, they use our cheap coal to process these minerals and then they send us back some solar panels and everything else with a hefty profit margin. These panels obviously have to be thrown out every two decades or so, roughly. That's another Ponzi scheme or pyramid scheme for you. The government must consider nuclear as an option. It is safe, it is economically viable and it has been very effective in comparable nations like Canada and the United States. Without cheap, reliable energy, our nation will continue to go backwards. The government needs to focus on one thing only, and that's getting out of the way. Get out of the way. It is time to reform our nation, repeal some legislation, reduce tax, reduce red and green tape and put our trust in the Australian people and the free market to get to work. The way to correct our economic course is very simple. It's just this: less government, more freedom. 17:19 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I rise to also speak this afternoon on this MPI. It was noted by one Labor senator that there's an economic revolution taking place in Australia, and I couldn't agree with her more. That economic revolution is turning the lives of Australian families upside-down. Like any revolution, it is causing chaos and heartache. People can't see in front of them. Of course, that economic revolution is a cost-of-living crisis that is sparing no-one in the Australian economy. Just last week we saw the national accounts provided. As other senators have said, they identified a per capita recession. A per capita recession is occurring across this country, meaning that Australians are getting poorer. I think for the first time ever Australian parents and Australian grandparents cannot say to their grandchildren that the future will be better for them than it was for themselves, because on the current trajectory the only outcome that people can be confident of is one of falling living standards. At the moment my home state of Western Australia has the largest number of mortgage borrowers in arrears of any Australian state. We also know that 21 per cent of Western Australian respondents to a recent Salvation Army report said that they can no longer meet their mortgage and rental payments. That was 21 per cent of Western Australians who responded to the Salvation Army survey. Guess what that statistic is nationally? Just seven per cent. And 41,000 low-income mortgage holders in Western Australia are facing very severe mortgage stress, with more than 30 per cent of the household budgets of those 41,000 families now being spent on mortgages. That is harm and hurt that is striking the hearts of many Western Australian households. We have a situation where the government couldn't care enough. It's not interested enough in the priorities of Western Australian working families. It's all the more remarkable that the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, came to Western Australia in May last year and launched his federal campaign to become the Prime Minister of this country with a commitment and with a promise that he would make life cheaper for WA and Australian families. Nothing could seriously be further from the truth. There is something else that is happening in our country at the moment, and it's happening quite subtly. That is the government is seeking to undermine one of the most important consensus arrangements we have in our country. That consensus is the high level of community support for our immigration program. Australia is a great multicultural country, and multiculturalism brings a lot of additional benefits. The decision to bring 715,000 people to Australia in just two years at a time when we have a housing affordability crisis, when rents are skyrocketing and when inflation is persistent in the rental market—that decision alone—will go a long way to undermine public confidence in our very important immigration program. The RBA has made that point. The RBA said in its recent statement of monetary policy released earlier this year: A shortfall in housing supply, relative to strong demand from a rising population, is expected to result in continued upward pressure on rents, adding to the inflation forecast. An immigration program must be planned and it must be prepared for. And this government has not planned and has not prepared for a 715,000 increase over two years. We know that that population burden falls disproportionately across our country. It falls in Sydney and Melbourne and less so in Perth and Brisbane. Maintaining high levels of public confidence in our migration program is so critical, and the government is on the verge of trashing that. 17:24 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I'm very pleased to speak on this matter of public importance. I think it really gets to the heart and the crux of everything that's wrong with the Labor Party—Australia has moved into a per capita recession caused by net zero policies, and is now resorting to an immigration and student 'Ponzi scheme' to try to cover the damage. It isn't working. But the damage it causes to the little guy, the battlers—and the people who benefit from this are at the big and of town, particularly the corporations in Australia, who have more customers and therefore more revenue, and our universities, which are a breeding ground for the Marxists who end up joining the Labor Party and the Greens. That is why the Labor Party continues on this reckless policy of having high immigration, mostly by students. I'm not against immigration. Indeed, it was former prime minister Ben Chifley, who after the war used immigration to build the Snowy Mountains hydro scheme. That provided lots of energy and water for irrigation down in some of the very fertile food basins of northern Victoria and southern New South Wales. That's good immigration because it increases the supply of goods and services. But the problem with student immigrants is that they don't go out and work in productive industries where they are building dams, building infrastructure, increasing the supply of water or increasing the supply of electricity. No, they're sitting around, as all students do—and I was a student once and, yes, I wasted a lot of time drinking beer and all that, even though I did go and get a job while I was a student—but this is not productive labour. Therefore, all the students do is increase demand and they do not increase supply. What we see here in this increase in demand is increasing interest rates and increasing price of rent—and that's if you can get a place to rent, because we also have a housing shortage. And it's not just housing that you're putting demand on here—you're also putting it on all our essential services. We need more roads, we need more infrastructure, we need more hospitals, we need more schools and so on and so on. But Labor sold out the little end of town because they know that they are really in bed with big business. We saw that last week with Qantas, with how the Prime Minister is good mates with Alan Joyce—Mr 'Give me $10 million even though I've driven Qantas into the ground' Joyce. And they're in bed with the universities. As we know, under section 51 of the 1997 income tax act, universities don't have to pay tax on foreign students. The reason the Labor Party doesn't want to bring in a tax on universities is that universities are in their back pocket. In the same way they use superannuation funds to steal hard-earned wages from the workers, they use universities to brainwash our children. So by the time our children have started work, they are not only broke from the HECS debt brought in by Paul Keating in the late 1980s but they're also brainwashed. The real tragedy in all this rapid immigration is our environment. Yet again, here is another act of hypocrisy from the Labor Party, who pretend to care about the environment. At the same time they're bringing in renewables, which are driving up energy prices, there are horrendous housing developments on the edge of the cities, putting housing lots on top of each other and destroying some of our most productive agricultural land. In the inner city areas we are getting these ugly high-rises. It's destroying the Australian way of life, and this is a real problem. The Labor government have been in power now for almost 18 months, and they have not got any answers. All they have done is pour fuel on the fire of the issues that were raised many times before. We need much more productive immigration if we're going to have immigration. I'm not against immigration but it's got to be productive. What the Labor Party is doing is running a rate of immigration that is way too high. They think it's a short-term solution to say, 'We're growing GDP,' but the reality is the GDP per capita is actually decreasing. All I can say is that the Prime Minister is a one-trick pony who for the last 18 months has pushed the Voice. He is going to find out very soon that the people are going to realise that is all he can do. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Order! The time for the discussion has expired. DOCUMENTS 71 DOCUMENTS National Disability Insurance Scheme 71 Order for the Production of Documents 71 17:29 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I table documents relating to an order for the production of documents concerning the NDIS Financial Sustainability Framework. Goods and Services Tax 71 Order for the Production of Documents 71 17:29 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I table documents relating to an order for the production of documents concerning goods and services tax revenue distribution. 17:30 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the documents. These documents, in relation to the good and services tax, have been tabled in response to an order for the production of documents I moved last week. It's fair to say that over the last four weeks matters concerning the GST, whether it be the tax rate, the breadth of the base or the distribution system, have again reared their head in our public discourse—as they should. We have members of the House of Representatives and others arguing for holistic reform of our tax system. The government's appointee as the new chair of the Productivity Commission, Danielle Wood, has previously made public comments with regard to the rate of GST that should be levied. She also authored a Grattan Institute report which made comments in regard to the ongoing suitability of the GST distribution arrangement that was put in place as the result of legislation passed by the parliament in 2018. That 2018 fairer GST distribution deal was important for Western Australia because it did an important thing. It put in place a GST floor, first at 70c and then rising to 75c. It's important to put that floor in context. No other state has had a GST relativity that has fallen below 81c in the dollar—not ever. By that measure, the installation of a GST floor for Western Australia sounds very fair. It's also worth noting that the Commonwealth Grants Commission forecast that without that fairer GST distribution deal Western Australia's GST relativity would have fallen to just 16c in the dollar in this financial year and even further, to 10c in every dollar, next financial year. So I—and, I dare say, every red-blooded Western Australian—am enthusiastic for the GST distribution deal insofar as the GST floor that was put in place. I might just add, at a tangent, that the Productivity Commission played a very important role in bringing a much greater level of awareness to the GST debate when it was asked by the Morrison government to pursue an independent inquiry into the GST distribution arrangements. That's something that was very, very welcome. The OPD that I asked of the Treasurer, Dr Chalmers, last week is an exact replica of a freedom of information request that I made of Dr Chalmers earlier in the year, which has, to this date, not been fulfilled. What the government have said today, in the tabling of these documents, is that they have an intention to fulfil that OPD but just can't do it at the moment. So my question to the government is a very, very simple one: when do you expect that OPD to be fulfilled? Perhaps Senator Brown can answer my question: when will this OPD be fulfilled? Silence. My expectation is that it will be fulfilled before the end of this week. What is the OPD seeking to do? Documents sought by me under FOI have revealed that the Board of Treasurers, which includes every state Treasurer of the country, met on 9 September and agreed to write to Dr Chalmers to talk about the GST deal and, in particular, the GST 'no worse off' guarantee. That letter, dated 30 January 2023 and signed by Andrew Barr, the Chief Minister of the Australian Capital Territory, said: On behalf of the Board of Treasurers … I write to you— that is, Dr Chalmers, the federal Treasurer— regarding the discussions at the 9 September 2022 meeting of the Council on Federal Financial Relations (CFFR), on the GST no-worse off guarantee. The fiscal pressures exercise that was undertaken jointly through CFFR highlighted the expenditure pressures that all governments are experiencing. This work also acknowledged the risk to State and Territory finances from the impending cessation of the Commonwealth-funded GST no-worse off guarantee from 2027-28. The letter went on to say at its conclusion: I would welcome further discussion with you— that is, Dr Chalmers, the federal Treasurer— on this matter to resolve it in the interest of all Australians. I propose that at its next meeting, the CFFR discuss a process and timeframe for resolution of this issue. And so what I am seeking in the form of this OPD, which is exactly the same as the freedom of information request lodged earlier this year, which has still not been fulfilled, is evidence—details of all of the correspondence between the federal government and every state treasurer and territory treasurer on the future of the GST arrangements. What is the government hiding? What is Dr Chalmers and the government hiding when it comes to the GST discussions they are having behind closed doors? I would add one other point which is much less known to people. The terms of reference for the Council on Federal Financial Relations meetings have been changed. The December 2022 terms of reference agreed by the Commonwealth Treasurer, Dr Chalmers, and others have now made deliberations of the Council on Federal Financial Relations confidential unless otherwise agreed. There is no transparency yet on the discussions that are happening between Dr Chalmers and his state and territory treasurer counterparts on the future of the GST deal. To add weight to my effort to bring some disclosure to this, I've taken the unprecedented step of writing to the Secretary to the Treasury, asking him to ensure that the law regarding freedom of information is upheld—an extraordinary step—because the federal Treasurer does not think that he should be obliged to implement that commitment that Anthony Albanese gave Australians in August 2022 when he said that Australians deserve accountability and transparency. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Order. Remember to use the appropriate titles. Debate adjourned. Aviation Industry 72 Order for the Production of Documents 72 17:38 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I present a document relating to an order for the production of documents concerning Qatar flight services to Australia. 17:38 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I move: That the Senate take note of the document. This document is in relation to Qatar flight services to Australia. As anyone who is following this from home will see, our Treasurer has tabled what he was told by Transport Minister King. Did she seek his advice on competition matters? Did he advise her of the impact economically that her decision would have on the aviation industry, the freight task, jobs and the profitability of Qantas—another one of the nine reasons this government has given for their Qatar Airways decision? Were our Treasurer and his department asked for any advice? You'd think they would be. Academics have actually suggested that this decision alone has cost our economy $1 billion. Even today, we saw the Minister for Foreign Affairs unable to answer very simple questions about when she was consulted, when she found out about the decision and what her role was in informing the Qatar ambassador and Qatar government of the decision of Minister King. We then had to watch our flailing trade minister go through the dictionary of excuses in his affable way and yet singularly refuse to provide a response. Because what we know is his department, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade—it's my understanding—has advised the infrastructure department and the minister for infrastructure and transport to agree to the request from Qatar Airways. When Catherine King stands up and says she consulted all relevant ministers but— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU The senator will use correct titles. Senator McKENZIE 207825 When Minister King, the transport minister who made this decision, stands up and says she consulted all relevant ministers, she did not consult the minister for trade. It begs the question of his relevance. She consulted all relevant ministers, she didn't consult the Minister for Trade. It begs the question of his relevance. She consulted the Minister for Foreign Affairs but that minister is unable to tell us when she was informed of the decision. Going to the very basics of the economic impact of the decision, not just on Australians' affordability of international airfares, we know this decision would have meant international airfares would have dropped in excess of 40 per cent. That's a lot of money for people who are struggling to pay mortgages and energy bills right now. The last thing they are thinking of doing is actually going on an international holiday. That decision alone not only had a significant impact on airfares but it also had an opportunity cost to our tourism industry of in excess of $788 million, to our freight industry and beyond. So you'd think Minister King would have sought the expertise of the Treasury, sat down with the Treasurer and had serious discussions about the impact of her decision on competition—domestic and international—on the freight task, on the tourism industry, on jobs, on the profitability of Qantas and beyond. When you look, the Treasurer has complied with the order, unlike the other ministers, unlike Minister Farrell, unlike the Prime Minister, who was supposed to at 5.30 today also provide this chamber with the documents, consultations, briefings and advice he had received when it came to this Qatar Airways decision. But he has again treated this chamber and the Senate with disrespect, as has the Deputy Leader of the Government in this chamber, Minister Farrell. Now, I have my hunch about why the trade minister has not given us the advice, the briefs, correspondence that he and his department have had with the transport minister about this decision, because it would have included advice that she has made the wrong decision, that she has overruled the minister for trade's own personal view and the view of his department. But again, it is disrespectful of this government to this chamber that is actually elected to hold the executive to account. As someone who has had the great privilege to be in executive government in this country, to thumb your nose at the only oversight that this parliament and our people have on executive power—that is, this chamber, our estimates process, the orders for production of documents and other systems we have in place—is just incredible and goes to a culture of secrecy and shutdown by Anthony Albanese and his ministers when it comes to being upfront with the Australian public. This is what this chamber received. These are the briefings. This is the correspondence. These are the documents that the Treasurer has had in his possession to do with the Qatar Airways decision. One is completely redacted. The second is his question time brief that says, 'If asked, why was the Qatar request for additional services not been approved?' The Treasurer, if he is asked that in the other place is to respond: 'The Australian government at this time has decided not to approve the Qatar Civil Aviation Authority request for additional services, taking into account all national interest considerations.' If we're playing bingo—tick!—that's one of the eight, right there: national interest considerations. We don't quite know what that means. I know the Deputy PM, Richard Marles, who was the Acting PM on the weekend, created another category of national interest on Sky when he called it 'the national aviation interest'. I'm looking forward to seeing that quantified somewhere in official documents. It continues, 'The government will continue to monitor market developments and explore opportunities to build bilateral trade and investment.' That is the only advice, correspondence or information the Treasurer of this country has to provide to this chamber as a result of this OPD. So it is clear that the Treasurer wasn't briefed on this decision. It is clear that it is a failure of the transport minister, Catherine King, to keep her colleagues informed, and if the Treasurer of this country isn't the relevant minister to be consulted with a decision like this than I am not sure who is. It certainly shouldn't be the Assistant Treasurer, who thinks that Qantas needs to be renationalised and that the government's job is to keep it profitable—not while it's busily pocketing half a billion dollars of its customers' money through COVID flight credits. If it weren't for this chamber and its representatives holding Alan Joyce and his executives to account, that money would still be on Qantas's balance sheet and not heading back into the pockets of hardworking Australians who, in good faith, paid that money. Because of a global pandemic, it has been sitting, earning interest for Alan Joyce and his retirement package and for the board of Qantas, instead of going back where it belongs, which is the bank accounts of hardworking Australians struggling with the cost-of-living situation. It is a failure of Catherine King, the transport minister, to consult and also to actually think of the basic questions. When you are making a decision that's not going to cabinet, the responsibility falls on you as the minister to do your due diligence. What impact will it have on competition? Will it impact foreign affairs and trade? There is a long, bureaucratic process that exists around these decisions where departments talk to departments before the brief comes up to the minister for signing, and I find it incredible that the transport department didn't talk to Treasury or the ACCC, particularly on the economic issues,. I wrote to Treasurer Chalmers over two weeks ago when this government halted the ACCC monitoring of our aviation sector, calling on him to reinstate that monitoring and to make sure it went further, because right now cancellations, delays and prices are going in the wrong direction. Australians deserve an aviation industry they can afford to travel on, where planes take off and land on time and your bags arrive at your destination. This government just isn't up to regulating aviation. (Time expired) 17:48 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales I'd like to play poker with this government, because it's got a tell—a big tell. Something is wrong here when you can't give the date for when you met and when you spoke, when you can't be sure if you spoke, and when you give an OPD document where there are seven dot points and they are all blacked out. For all that we know, they were options A, B, C, D, E, F and G—the seven original answers that might have been given individually for the single reason that we had to cancel this. Then we go to the back page and we have two more crossed out. I imagine they are options 8 and 9 that we can't say were the reasons for this. The only thing not blacked out is 'in the national interest'. This government thinks: 'We floated all these answers. Let's try this one and this one. This one sounds good; let's keep with that. So that's this week. Now we'll get some different dates out. We'll see which one holds and doesn't embarrass the Prime Minister too much.' I note that before the election Prime Minister Albanese said: … when I make a mistake, I'll fess up to it, and I'll set about correcting the mistake. I won't blame someone else. I'll accept responsibility. That's what leaders do. What leaders do is take responsibility. So we're in a parliament without a leader. It's the old original take note I gave: dodge ball—duck, dive, dodge, weave and dip. That's what's happening here. We can't nail the date for when these people did or didn't speak. We can't name a reason that was actually the reason. We can't get an answer out of all these blacked-out dot points. It's simple if this is an honest, easy decision and you're sticking with it. Come clean. It's not that hard: 'I met with so and so on this date. We discussed it. We thought 'national interest'. Get rid of it. This issue is gone.' This should have been a one-day or two-day issue. It is a five-week issue because when you lie you get caught. Sorry, when you're untrue, you get caught. I withdraw. When you are part of a cover up, you always worsen the sin. It's footy finals time and the Newcastle Knights won on the weekend. I was corporate manager for the Newcastle Knights. Always the cover ups are worse than the sins for the players. We have it here, the same thing. It is a document that says nothing. This document doesn't even have a date stamp on it. When was the last time you saw a government document without a date stamp? Just come out. Who met whom, who said what, when did it happen, what was the truth? That is why it is really intriguing for those on this side. It is really simple, but we get nothing but this duck, dive, dodge, weave and dodge, or whatever it is. We get this simple answer: 'Mr Michael McCormack, when he was the minister, did the same thing.' There weren't these slots available. We didn't have one-third of capacity coming into Australia to give up. We didn't have flights the price that they were. My wife was in tears as she said goodbye to her parents from Wales, who were visiting at the beginning of COVID as they got on a Qatar Airlines flight to get home, because they were the last ones flying and getting people home from Australia. They were doing the right thing by this nation and by the people. They were bringing people back. They were taking people to Europe. They were getting people home. But it's not in the national interest to let people know how we came up with this decision. We've got one OPD back to date. There are many more on this. People all through the government have got their black crayons out, scribbling: don't want to know the date, don't want to know the reason, don't want to know the time. People are paying more for their flights than they should be. People have fewer destinations for their flights than they should have. The only thing this has increased is the stress on the Australian people and the stress on the staffers who have to try and cover up decisions that are bad for the government. I look forward to the other OPD things here. I look forward to playing poker with the government, topping up our wages with the money from your till. I look forward to the truth being free in this place, eventually, because it will come out, and every person that has said a thing that is different will be tied to that decision. The first scalp of the government is a big one, but people are tying themselves to this. It just feels like someone did something wrong and we're covering it up. With that, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 74 COMMITTEES Commonwealth Bilateral Air Service Agreements, Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee 74 Membership 74 17:53 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU The President has received letters for the memberships of committees. 17:53 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania by leave—I move: That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees, as set out in the document available in the chamber and listed on the Dynamic Red. Commonwealth Bilateral Air Service Agreements —Select Committee— Appointed—Participating members: Senators Cox, Faruqi, Hanson-Young, McKim, Barbara Pocock, Rice, Shoebridge, Steele-John, Waters and Whish-Wilson Education and Employment Legislation Committee — Appointed— Substitute member: Senator Barbara Pocock to replace Senator Faruqi for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 Participating member: Senator Faruqi Environment and Communications Legislation Committee — Appointed— Substitute member: Senator Davey to replace Senator Cadell for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023. Participating member: Senator Cadell Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee — Appointed— Substitute member: Senator Waters to replace Senator Barbara Pocock for the committee's inquiry into the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fairer Contracts and Grants) Bill 2023 Participating member: Senator Barbara Pocock BILLS 75 BILLS National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023, National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 75

National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023

National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023

First Reading 75 17:54 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 75 17:54 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— NATIONAL OCCUPATIONAL RESPIRATORY DISEASE REGISTRY BILL 2023 I am pleased to introduce the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023. This Bill delivers on the recommendation of the National Dust Disease Taskforce to establish a National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry, in response to the increase in silicosis in stonemasons working on engineered stone benchtops. Silicosis is an irreversible lung disease that can only be caused by workers' exposure to silica dust. Health screening conducted by some jurisdictions in recent years indicates that nearly one in four engineered stone workers who have been in the industry since before 2018 are suffering from silicosis or other silica dust related diseases. These are entirely preventable conditions. This Bill establishes the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry to capture information on respiratory diseases believed to have been occupationally caused or exacerbated. The National Registry will also capture associated respiratory disease causing agents that led to the disease. The National Registry will capture and share data, where appropriate, on: the incidence of occupational respiratory diseases and their respiratory disease causing agents; the last and main exposures including the place of business, industry, occupation and job task; and respiratory health data. This information will aid in detecting new and emerging threats to workers' respiratory health, inform incidence trends, help inform actions to be taken to reduce further worker exposure, support research into occupational respiratory diseases, and assist in targeting and monitoring the effectiveness of interventions and prevention strategies. The Bill will require medical specialists in the fields of respiratory and sleep medicine and occupational and environmental medicine who diagnose certain occupational respiratory diseases to notify the diagnosis, patient, and exposure details, to the National Registry via an online portal. The Bill provides the Minister for Health with the power to make Rules prescribing which occupational respiratory diseases require notification. Consistent with the recommendations of the National Dust Disease Taskforce, initially only silicosis will be prescribed. However this power—which would require further consultation before it can be exercised—will ensure the National Registry can respond to a new threat to workers' respiratory health should they arise in the future. The Bill will also allow respiratory and occupational physicians to notify the National Registry of information about an individual who has been diagnosed with a non-prescribed occupational respiratory disease, where that individual provides consent. The Bill provides for two categories of information to be notified to the National Registry: the minimum notification information, and additional notification information. The minimum notification information is information that needs to be supplied to notify an occupational respiratory disease to the National Registry. This includes information identifying the individual with a diagnosed occupational respiratory disease, the respiratory disease, and details on the exposure including the last and main exposures. The additional notification information is information that can be supplied where the individual has provided consent. This may include relevant medical test results, demographic and lifestyle information such as their smoking history and employment status, and details of each job where the individual believes that they had an exposure to a respiratory disease-causing agent. The Bill will enable the disclosure of notifications about an individual made to the National Registry, including to: respiratory and occupational physicians treating the individual; prescribed Commonwealth, state or territory authorities; and State and Territory health agencies and work health and safety agencies. The disclosure to state and territory health agencies and work health and safety agencies will increase awareness of the prevalence of occupational respiratory diseases in the state or territory and will enable actions to be taken to reduce further worker exposure to those diseases. The Bill does not exclude or limit the operation of any state or territory laws requiring the reporting or disclosure of information concerning occupational respiratory diseases. As Queensland and New South Wales have existing registers that require the mandatory reporting of some occupational respiratory diseases by physicians, the Bill allows for states with such registers to provide in their state legislation that the notification of these diseases will occur through the National Registry so that there is no need for a physician in those states to notify twice: once nationally, and once again to a state register. The Bill complements other work underway by the government to address silicosis, including: developing a National Silicosis Prevention Strategy and Action Plan to establish a coordinated, national, whole of government focus to prevent silicosis; funding of grant activities that include developing training materials to support the diagnosis and classification of silicosis for radiologists; and targeted education and training for physicians and other health care professionals on the diagnosis and management of workers affected by silicosis and occupational respiratory diseases; improving awareness of the risks of silicosis; providing better coordinated support to people with silicosis and their families; developing a research forum to strengthen the dust diseases evidence base; and establishing a National Rapid Response Protocol. As announced by my colleague, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, all jurisdictions have agreed to further reforms of Australia's model work health and safety laws to ensure they protect Australian workers. This will include stronger regulation of high-risk crystalline silica processes as well as other changes to further educate and protect workers in workplaces where exposure to silica dusts and other agents that may cause respiratory disease may exist. Ministers have also tasked Safe Work Australia with developing further advice on a ban on the use of engineered stone products in Australia. This Bill demonstrates the government's commitment to understanding and improving the occupational respiratory health of workers. NATIONAL OCCUPATIONAL RESPIRATORY DISEASE REGISTRY (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2023 I am pleased to introduce the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023. This Bill deals with consequential matters arising from the enactment of the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023, known as the NORDR Bill. The Bill will amend Schedule 3 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982, known as the FOI Act. This amendment will add the offence of unauthorised disclosure of protected information contained in the NORDR Bill to the list of secrecy provisions recognised for the purposes of subsection 38(1) of the FOI Act. Protected information for the purposes of the NORDR Bill includes personal information, workplace identifying information or information that is commercial in confidence in the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry, or derived from personal information in the National Registry. The amendment to the FOI Act will ensure that information protected by the secrecy provision in section 23 of the NORDR Bill will be exempt from disclosure under section 38 of the FOI Act. This will protect against unnecessary intrusions on an individual's privacy or commercial interests by ensuring that protected information is unconditionally exempt from disclosure due to the operation of section 38 of the FOI Act, in response to an FOI request. Debate adjourned. Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill 2023, Parliamentary Workplace Support Service (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023, Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment Bill 2023 77

Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill 2023

Parliamentary Workplace Support Service (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023

Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment Bill 2023

First Reading 77 17:55 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 77 17:55 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— PARLIAMENTARY WORKPLACE SUPPORT SERVICE BILL 2023 The Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill 2023 will establish the statutory Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. This Bill advances the Government's commitment to implement recommendations of the Australian Human Rights Commission's Set the Standard Report directed at making Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces safe and respectful. Implementation of all 28 recommendations from that Report is a shared responsibility across the Parliament, and has been overseen by the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce. The Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill implements recommendation 11 of the Set the Standard Report, which is a key structural reform. Once established, the proposed Parliamentary Workplace Support Service will carry forward work to implement another six recommendations. The Bill is the product of extensive consultation with members of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce and its staff consultation group. This recognises that the proposed Parliamentary Workplace Support Service would have functions to provide human resources and other employment related support to parliamentarians and their staff. The Set the Standard Report found there was an absence of an adequate and authoritative people and culture function for parliamentarians and their staff, and a lack of standardised people management processes. The Report therefore recommended that an independent body should be established to provide a foundation for a professionalised, safe, supportive and respectful workplace. These are objects of the proposed Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. The proposed new entity will integrate the functions of the existing Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. Since its establishment in September 2021, that body has been a trusted source of advice and support on behavioural conduct to people who work in Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces. The proposed new Parliamentary Workplace Support Service would continue the support, complaint resolution and review functions of the existing Service. It is intended that the review function, which is akin to a complaint investigation mechanism, would be performed by the proposed new Service pending establishment of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission. The Commission is the other main structural reform recommended in the Set the Standard Report. It would have a main function to investigate complaints of breaches of Codes of Conduct which were endorsed, on an interim basis, by both Houses of the Parliament in February this year. The Codes introduce clear standards of behaviour to support a parliamentary workplace that is professional, safe and respectful. It is one of the functions of the new Parliamentary Workplace Support Service to provide advice on the Codes. Representatives of this Parliament need to work together to get these structural reforms implemented. We have been working intensely across the Parliament to bring forward this legislation to establish the new Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. As the next step, the Government will move forward with establishing the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission as a priority. The Set the Standard Report set out guiding principles for the new human resources entity, namely that it should: be independent and recognise the unique nature of parliamentary workplaces, be able to compel compliance with required policies and address non compliance, and be capable of influencing strategic and cultural change, and drive the professionalisation of the workforce . The Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill stays true to those principles. The new Service would be headed by an independent office-holder. The Bill makes clear that the Chief Executive Officer of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service cannot be directed by any person in relation to the performance of their functions or exercise of their powers. Importantly, the CEO will be able to obtain expert advice from an Advisory Board, and will also be able to obtain views from parliamentarians and staff whom it services, through a consultative committee. The PWSS will have an education and training function to support parliamentarians and staff in their employment relationship. It will provide training on the Codes of Conduct to a broader cohort of people that work in the parliamentary workplace. It is important that people can see that progress is being made in maintaining a professional, safe and respectful parliamentary workplace. With that aim in mind, the proposed new PWSS will report annually on key indicators of cultural change, such as gender and diversity characteristics, and progress in preventing misconduct like bullying and sexual harassment. Where needed, the PWSS will be able to make policies and training programs mandatory. This would require the approval of the PWSS Advisory Board. The PWSS will be able to publicly report on non compliance with mandatory training by a parliamentarian. But, it ought to be the commitment of every parliamentarian and staff member to comply with any mandatory measures. This Bill is the product of close and extensive consultation across Parliament. The Government thanks parliamentarians and staff for their input. The Parliament is a unique workplace, but it is also one of Australia's most prominent workplaces. The people that work here should have the systems they need to go about their work in a professional, safe and respectful environment. PARLIAMENTARY WORKPLACE SUPPORT SERVICE (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2023 The Parliamentary Workplace Support Service (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 would provide for consequential amendments and transitional arrangements to support the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill 2023. This Bill proposes amendments to the Freedom of Information Act 1982 and to the Archives Act 1983 to restrict public access to documents of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. Many records held by that entity will concern employment related information that is personal information. In addition, these measures will give people greater confidence to engage with the PWSS's support and complaint related functions. The Bill also amends the Parliamentary Service Determination 2013 to repeal a provision that establishes the existing Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. This is because the proposed new Parliamentary Workplace Support Service will integrate the functions of the existing entity. The Bill also ensures that the proposed new Parliamentary Workplace Support Service can continue to deal with matters currently dealt with by the existing Service. This Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill package is the product of close and extensive consultation across the Parliament. The Government thanks parliamentarians and staff for their input. MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (STAFF) AMENDMENT BILL 2023 The Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment Bill 2023 will amend the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (MOPS Act) to modernise, improve transparency, and clarify the employment framework for parliamentarians and their staff. The Bill will implement recommendations of the Review of the MOPS Act which was delivered by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet in October last year. Measures in this Bill will also contribute to the cultural change in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces envisaged the Australian Human Rights Commission in the 'Set the Standard Report' on Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces. The MOPS Act establishes a framework for parliamentarians and office- holders to employ people on behalf of the Commonwealth. The Act has been in effect for 39 years. The Australian employment law landscape has evolved considerably in this time. Until now, the MOPS Act has not been substantially amended to keep pace with these changes. The 'Set the Standard Report' recommended a comprehensive review of the operation and effectiveness of the MOPS Act to ensure consistency with modern employment frameworks. This Review resulted in 15 recommendations which were agreed in principle by the Government and supported by the Opposition. The Bill would implement 11 of those 15 recommendations. The remaining recommendations will be implemented by the proposed new statutory Parliamentary Workplace Support Service to be established by the Parliamentary Workplace Support Bill 2023. The measures introduced in the MOPS Amendment Bill are intended to ensure that the employment framework for MOPS Act staff is fit for purpose, reflects contemporary employment settings, and supports a safe and respectful working environment. The Bill clarifies the roles and responsibilities of parliamentarians, office- holders, and employees, including their obligations under other workplace laws. The Bill introduces employment principles to set expectations about the workplace for parliamentarians and their staff. The principles articulate the desired organisational culture in the workplace and will be an important touchstone for parliamentarians, staff and the new Parliamentary Workplace Support Service when formulating policies. The Bill will also enhance transparency of employment arrangements with a new requirement that the determination of terms and conditions for employment under the Act are made publicly available on the Federal Register of Legislation unless they identify individuals. The Bill includes requirements intended to guide decision-making by parliamentarians about employment matters, and to support fair outcomes and processes when making significant employment decisions. Parliamentarians would be required to recruit employees based on their assessment of a candidate's capability to perform a specified role. This requirement reflects the value of establishing clear expectations at the start of employment and that can be met, while preserving the parliamentarian's ability to specify the role and skill requirements. It is anticipated the PWSS will provide guidance and support to parliamentarians to fulfil this new obligation. Parliamentarians would also be required to consult with the new PWSS prior to making a decision to terminate the employment of a staff member or suspend a staff member without pay. This measure will support parliamentarians to meet their legal obligations when making those decisions. A new provision for temporary suspension of employment will offer an alternative to termination of employment. It would be another mechanism to address risks in the workplace. The Bill would also enable the PWSS, with the agreement of an employing parliamentarian, to suspend a MOPS employee in limited, specific circumstances. The Bill also allows the new PWSS to take action to address other gaps in the employment framework, including the power to exercise limited employer functions in cases where there is no employing parliamentarian. Some proposed amendments will streamline the MOPS Act, including by reflecting categories of employment used in practice, and removing obsolete provisions in the Act. Proposed amendments to the Act's automatic termination provisions clarify the intended operation of these provisions, and will increase job security for electorate staff of parliamentarians who occupy particular offices such as Ministers and party leaders. As recommended by the MoP(S) Review the Bill also provides for a further review within 5 years of the amendments commencing. The amendments made by this Bill are the product of extensive consultation with parliamentarians and staff across Parliament, including through the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce and its Staff Consultation Group, and union representatives. Since the amendments implement recommendations of the MOPS Act Review, they are also informed by the contributions of current and former MOPS Act employees, parliamentarians, academics, unions, parliamentary departments, Commonwealth government agencies, and state and international jurisdictions conducted during the course of the MOPS Act Review. The Government thanks every person who has engaged with the development of this legislative reform. Through collaborative effort to implement the Review's recommendations we can deliver safer and more respectful parliamentary workplaces. The Government believes the changes in this Bill will underline the responsibilities and obligations of members of parliament as the employer. This Bill is an important part of the reforms the Government is progressing to support a professional employment framework for staff of parliamentarians. Debate adjourned. MOTIONS 79 MOTIONS Climate Change Authority 79 17:56 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU A message has been received from the House of Representatives forwarding a resolution agreed to by that House proposing the referral of a matter to the Climate Change Authority and requesting the concurrence of the Senate. T he House of Representatives message read as follows— Message no. 246, dated 6 September 2023—Proposed reference to the Climate Change Authority, and transmitting for the concurrence of the Senate the following resolution: That: (1) the following matter be referred to the Climate Change Authority for review, in accordance with section 59(1)(a)(ii) of the Climate Change Authority Act 2011: (a) the potential technology transition and emission pathways that best support Australia's transition to net zero emissions by 2050 for the following sectors: (i) electricity and energy; (ii) transport; (iii) industry and waste; (iv) agriculture and land; (v) resources; and (vi) built environment; (2) the review must identify: (a) existing and prospective opportunities to achieve emissions reductions; (b) which technologies may be deployed in each sector to support emissions reductions; (c) how public and private finance can support and align with these emission pathways; (d) barriers to implementation, such as short-term or longer-term pressures on cost and supply chains and the pace of technology commercialisation; (e) workforce matters, including skills and opportunities for women; (f) any gaps in existing evidence and data; and (g) any other relevant factors; (3) the review must take into consideration: (a) the principles for the Climate Change Authority set out in section 12 of the Climate Change Authority Act 2011, including the global goals in Article 2 of the Paris Agreement and boosting economic, employment and social benefits; and (b) the range of emissions reductions achievable through the deployment of available and prospective technologies; (4) the Climate Change Authority must give the report of the review to the Climate Change Minister, in accordance with section 60(1)(b) of the Climate Change Authority Act 2011, by 1 August 2024 to assist the Government in developing a national net zero by 2050 plan. 17:56 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I seek leave to have the message considered immediately. Leave granted. Senator CAROL BROWN F49 I move: That the Senate concur with the resolution of the House of Representatives proposing the reference of a matter to the Climate Change Authority. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 80 COMMITTEES Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Joint Committee 80 Appointment 80 17:57 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU A message has been received from the House of Representatives forwarding a resolution agreed to by that House proposing a variation to the resolution of appointment of the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander Affairs and requesting the concurrence of the Senate. T he House of Representatives message read as follows— Message no. 245, dated 6 September 2023—Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, and transmitting for the concurrence of the Senate the following resolution: That the resolution of appointment for the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs be amended to replace paragraph 3 with the following: (3) the committee consist of 13 members, five Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, two Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, one Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by any minority group or independent Member, two Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, one Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and two Senators to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator. 17:57 Senator CARO F49 Tasmania L BROWN (—) (): I seek leave to have the message considered immediately. Leave granted. Senator CAROL BROWN F49 I move: That the Senate concur with the resolution of the House of Representatives relating to the resolution of appointment of the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. Question agreed to. Migration Joint Committee, Implementation of the National Redress Scheme—Joint Committee 81 Membership 81 BILLS 81 BILLS International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Amendment Bill 2023 81

International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Amendment Bill 2023

Returned from the House of Representatives 81 COMMITTEES 81 COMMITTEES Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee 81 Reference 81 17:58 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I seek leave to amend business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 in the terms circulated in the chamber. Leave granted. Senator HANSON BK6 I amend the motion and move the amended motion: That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 4 June 2024: (a) the establishment of a sunset date in relation to submission of claims of native title, after which no further claims of native title can be made; and (b) the effectiveness of the operation of the native title system, options to improve economic development resulting from native title, and options to improve certainty over the claim process. I rise to speak to this motion. What I am asking for is a reference to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for an inquiry into the establishment of a sunset date in relation to a submission of claims of native title after which no further claims of native title can be made. The reporting date for that will be 24 June. Paragraph (b) of the amended motion I have put up is: (b) the effectiveness of the operation of the native title system, options to improve economic development resulting from native title, and options to improve certainty over the claim process. I already know what's going to happen here. I know my motion is going to go down. And it's because in this chamber, whenever I put up any motion calling for accountability—like, I want an investigation into NATSIC and ACS, to do with Aboriginal accountability—I don't get the support. Yet the taxpayers are wanting accountability, but they're not having it. And when I put up a private member's bill on identification, to aboriginality—again, it's voted down; no accountability. And I know now, the same thing: this is going to go down. But I am a woman of principle, and I must speak on behalf of so many Australians who have had enough, who have had a gutful. And it's very important that we have a look at this. I know Senator David Pocock is going to be voting against it. Now, just to give you an outline of this whole thing, Senator Pocock is actually from Zimbabwe. He went through being forced off his land because of the Blacks. He and his family were given 90 days to leave, because of the taking over of the land. He then was given the opportunity to come out here to live in Australia. He's had a great life. He's been one of the Wallabies. He's now a member of this parliament and has a casting vote on just about all matters of importance on legislation in this parliament. But on every occasion that I put up a motion to call for accountability, Senator Pocock says no, and also with this motion: he won't be voting for it. So, he's quite happy to see Australians constantly losing land in this nation, when the same thing happened to him in South Africa, in Zimbabwe. He's allowing it to happen here, with no accountability. It's quite amazing that someone who has had it happen to him and his family is quite prepared to see it happen here in Australia, without questioning, without accountability—nothing. It's like, nup, door shut, not interested. I want to speak on behalf of many Australians who feel the same way as I do—a commonsense approach to it, that we just want answers, we want accountability. Native title has been a major issue impacting all Australians' land rights for more than 30 years since the Mabo and Wik decisions. It's time to put an end to it and introduce equal rights for all with respect to Australian land. Today more than half of Australia is under native title, and if all pending claims are factored in, up to 62 per cent of our country will be under it. That's almost two-thirds of this continent claimed by less than two per cent of the national population. I say less than two per cent because native title claimants must meet a higher eligibility threshold than just anyone who ticks a box to claim they're Indigenous. Only about 430,000 Australians meet this definition, as opposed to the 812,000 people who claimed Indigenous heritage at the 2021 census. I remind senators that this was a 25.2 increase on the 2016 figure, compared with an eight per cent rise in the overall national population. I am moving this motion on behalf of millions of Australians who've had a gutful of native title. They're sick and tired of the explicit racial double standards underpinning native title. Non-indigenous Australians must work, save and borrow in order to get title to land. They have to buy it or at least inherit it from family who have bought it. Native title claimants don't need to do anything like that. They need only claim a form of historic spiritual or cultural connection—which, at best, had some validity generations ago but has been effectively rendered meaningless since. Why should a mythical belief in the spirit of a serpent inhabiting a nameless creek prevent a farmer from building a crossing over it, as happened in Western Australia earlier this year? I can't make spiritual connections claims like that. My great-grandparents worked land in the Lockyer Valley with their own hands many years ago. Their connection was more than spiritual or cultural. They poured their blood, sweat and tears into the land, raising their children on it. But my claim of connection to that land would never be recognised by granting me title. I'm Indigenous to Australia like anyone else born here, but, because I'm not Aboriginal, that sort of claim for land rights is denied to me. I do not only refer to native title claims. Aboriginal Australians can make claims on any Crown land that's considered unused, and their legal costs will be fully funded by the Australian government. Respondents to these claims such as local government are not afforded the same support, despite the cost of running into millions of dollars. Even successful native title claimants, depending on who they are, are not able to take advantage of the economic opportunities. Senator HANSON BK6 I'm going to take that interjection from the Greens senator saying, 'Of course they are funded.' No, they're not. That was my question last week on the floor. But the Queensland South Native Title Services has in their budget $71 million given to them to make claims in Queensland. The budget was stripped of any money given to the respondents for this. There is no money in the budget. They stripped it. And what was in it? There was $7.1 million. So you're ill-advised or you don't listen to what's going on in the chamber to understand it, to make these allegations again. You make alligators, but you don't even know what you're talking about. That's why this has to be brought to attention. You're making allegations there; they're not true. The respondents are not given— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Take a seat, please, Senator Hanson. We have a point of order. Senator Shoebridge 169119 I ask you to direct Senator Hanson to address her remarks through the chair and I ask you to bring her to attention. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Thank you. I'm sure Senator Hanson heard that and will accordingly direct her remarks through me rather than across the chamber. Please continue, Senator Hanson. Senator HANSON BK6 I'd love to refer my remarks to you, but I will respond to senators if they want to make interjections here. If I know they're not telling the truth, I will do that. Through you, Chair— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Senator Shoebridge is, I presume, standing on the same point of order. Senator Hanson, you did indeed direct your remarks not through me. Senator HANSON BK6 I said 'through the chair' and I said I'll respond to an interjection for someone who's making a remark I can't let go unanswered and have lies told. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Senator Shoebridge, did you wish to make a point of order? Senator Shoebridge 169119 Simply that the senator immediately flouted your ruling as soon as you made it. It was a polite, well-considered response from the chair, and literally within seconds of it this senator flouted your direction. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. The interjections are also disorderly, so, if you expect Senator Hanson to speak through the chair, you should wait to speak in this debate. Please continue, Senator Hanson. Senator HANSON BK6 Thank you very much. As I was saying, respondents to these claims such as local government are not afforded the same support, despite the cost of running into millions of dollars. My research shows there is an enormous number of claims put out through Queensland. Not only that; about 40,000 claims are put out in New South Wales alone. This has got nothing to do with native title; this is on top of native title. The fact is that, just after the Howard government got in, he actually did move a sunset clause, and that was thrown out. I am aware that a fund was put up of about $1 billion, and that money was in perpetuity then to buy land, so about $40 million was also used to buy land. So, apart from native title and these claims on Crown land plus the funds that were set up, this has got to the point where Australians have had enough. They are effectively held hostage by the Aboriginal land councils, who refuse to give up control of the land and money generated from it. Even the successful native title claimants, depending on who they are, are not able to take advantage of the economic opportunities. A lot of this land is handed over to the land councils. I've got to congratulate Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price on the fact that she wanted an inquiry into the land councils because of their corruption. That money is not going to the people. They rake in the billions from the royalties. They rake in the monies from the leases and landowners, but—guess what?—it doesn't go back to the Aboriginal people. This is where the Aboriginal people have themselves come to me and said: 'We want our own land. We want to be able to build our own houses. We want to get a loan. We want to build our businesses. But do you know what? We're controlled by the land councils.' This is what you've allowed to go on and on and on. That's why these people are in communities that are so downtrodden and beaten down by nepotism and by people in positions who are looking after their own jobs. That's exactly where the Voice will take us, as well, and that's another point. There is another form of corruption here, and I talk about the land councils' control over the people that they are supposed to be looking after. But they don't. They name all these charities and rake in billions of taxpayers' dollars that go out the door. Where's the accountability? There's none. What I ask for today is for native title to be extinguished after 25 June. Put in your claims. Then, for a period after that, they'll all have to be sorted through. But the fact is that we have to call an end to it. At the end of the day, it is another form of corruption that prevents billions of taxpayer dollars for Indigenous disadvantage from getting to people who need it. It was John Howard who proposed a sunset clause for native title claims, and this might have been implemented if not for the Independent senator for Tasmania, Brian Harradine. A sunset clause is what I propose be examined in this inquiry along with the operation of the native title system, options to improve certainty over the claims process and options to improve economic development opportunities. As I said, I believe that mid-June 2025 would give plenty of time to allow any remaining claims of native title to be lodged. After that, it will be time for equality. After that, all Australians, regardless of race, will have to do the same thing to purchase land—work, save and borrow. Special connections will be simply that, held in spirit only. If we intend to make a statement in this country that we are equal and that we're all Australians together, we need to think about this. I know you're not going to vote for it. You're not interested in accountability. You're not interested in pulling Australians together. It's all about division in this place all the time. That's a shame, because many Australians really want that. They are screaming out for equality. If we were to get rid of the idea of a person being of this race or that race or another race and say that we're all Australians born together in this country, you might have a chance of pulling it together and you might have a chance of looking after the maligned. Regardless of whether you're Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander or not, we have many Australians in this country who are disadvantaged and living in poverty. The Smith Family advertise that there are about two million children in this country living in poverty. What are you doing about that? You're doing absolutely nothing. The cost of living is destroying people. They are losing their homes; they don't have roofs over their heads; they have nothing. But all you're worried about now is your Voice to Parliament, which you don't need, because you have a voice. You know exactly what the problems are. But this is all about setting up sovereignty for another nation within the nation. That's what this is all about. That's why you need this native title to keep going on and on and on. Like I said, when you have only two per cent of the population owning what will be more than 60 per cent of the landmass of Australia, you have big problems. I, like many Australians, worked through blood, sweat and tears with the long hours to make the money to buy my land, and that's the way it should be. Forget about what happened 250 years ago. I'm not interested in that. We're all Australians born here today. Instead of making claims all the time, let everyone get their land the same way. Work for it as Australians regardless of your background, race or who you are. We're all Australians and should be treated equally, and I'll keep saying that time and time again. 18:14 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I rise to speak on the motion of Senator Hanson as amended regarding native title. To commence my remarks, there is significant merit in paragraph (b) of Senator Hanson's motion. In fact, if Senator Hanson had merely moved paragraph (b) I could assure you that the Liberals would have easily been able to support it. The issue we have in paragraph (a) is it is legally problematic. One concern we have is that it could lead to an increase in litigation. So on that basis, while paragraph (a) remains in it, we are unable to support the motion in its present form. As I said, if it was just paragraph (b) we could support the motion. Paragraph (b) of the motion asks the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee to inquire into 'the effectiveness of the operation of the native title system, options to improve economic development resulting from native title, and options to improve certainty over the claim process'. The coalition recognises the merit of an inquiry into the native title system. Many would be aware that native title is a form of property rights that sits alongside other property rights like freehold title. Dealing with native title has become a routine part of doing business on land in Australia. It touches on the full range of primary industries. Agricultural, pastoral, mining and other forms of economic development are all affected by native title. The proper use, as Senator Hanson has stated, has enormous potential to unlock economic benefits for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. We on this side of the chamber recognise the potential economic benefits of using native title to stimulate investment and jobs in regional and remote Australia. It makes good sense. If you have rights to use land, why not capitalise on them for the benefit of your community? But in far too many cases—and this is why we would support part (b) of the motion—the potential economic effects from native title are not being realised. For too long, native title rights have not delivered the kinds of outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities that we would have liked to have seen them deliver. It is therefore appropriate that we do consider the effectiveness of the operation of the native title system. The Native Title Act, for anybody who has tried to read it, for anyone who has tried to practise in the area of it, is notoriously complex. It involves myriad confusing concepts, all of which interplay in complex ways to affect native title claims. For example, the Native Title Act involves the concepts of a past act regime, which is an act that occurred before the native title commenced, and a future act regime, which is an act that was to occur after the Native Title Act commenced but, given we are now in 2023, ironically, may actually have happened in the past. Now if that isn't confusing enough, just to highlight the labyrinth of complexity, there is also the concept of the intermediate period act, which sits within the future act regime and, on top of that, may be a category A, Bill, C or D intermediate period act. Now try telling that to someone who is trying to make a living that they themselves now need to consider a category A intermediate period act that sits within the future act regime. You have lost them. They are gone. Their eyes have already glazed over. But the complexity in native title does not stop with the basic concepts. The act sets out the procedural rights that go with native title and some of the ways in which native title can be used. It allows native title groups, for example, to negotiate individual land use agreements. It allows them into enter into so-called section 31 or tripartite agreements between the Commonwealth, the state and the relevant native title holders. It also covers various other sorts of agreements. Importantly though, the act also sets out pathways for the claim and recognition of native title rights whether through negotiation or litigation. As I said, there are many issues to explore. That is why paragraph (b) of the motion absolutely warrants support. In relation to paragraph (a), the biggest concern I have is that, if this is agreed to, it could actually make the problem more legally complex and could actually see an increase in litigation, and that is absolutely not what we want to see. Basic questions absolutely should be explored and looked into. Is the claims process too complex? Are applicant groups adequately representing the will of native title holders? Do native title holders and applicant groups face procedural barriers that are baked into the Native Title Act? Are there fast-track options? Do we need to simplify the system? Is the tripartite agreement system under section 31 of the Native Title Act doing everything it could? Are the governance arrangements—and this is incredibly important, and it is something Senator Hanson spoke of—for registered native title bodies corporate appropriate? Do they need to be revisited? Are we seeing inefficiencies caused by structural and procedural barriers? Again, as Senator Hanson has raised: what role are the land councils playing and are they are a help to this process or, alternatively, are they actually a hindrance? Is the Native Title Tribunal performing as we would hope in terms of timeliness and process? Quite possibly not. What about the role of the Federal Court in all of this? Ultimately, if you are going to have native title, the one thing we need to be sure of is that we are realising the economic opportunities for those who most need it. The other thing we need to explore and potentially simplify is how the native title system interacts with heritage planning and with environmental laws. Does that interaction create barriers to development? If that is creating barriers to development then absolutely this does need to be looked at. There are so many questions that need to be considered. That is why we acknowledge the wisdom of paragraph (b) of Senator Hanson's motion. It is a sensible part. It is a sensible thing to look at. It is absolutely worthy of substantial policy debate. But in relation to paragraph (a), I'm concerned about the legal issues. Paragraph (a) of the motion calls for 'the establishment of a sunset date in relation to submission of claims of native title, after which no further claims of native title can be made'. The issue I have with this particular part of the motion is whether or not the proposal to sunset native title claims would work from a legal perspective in the context of the Native Title Act. We know how complex—I have already read it out—the Native Title Act itself actually is. We don't know how that sunsetting of claims would work. It is unclear what would happen to all the various claims that are on foot as we speak. Even if we worked through the complexity of the Native Title Act, it is unclear whether it is even possible—and this is one of the issues I have again in terms of the legalities of paragraph (a)—to sunset native title claims. This is one of the issues that arise in relation to paragraph (a) in any event. Native title itself exists in Australian law. When you look at paragraph (a) of the motion you need to remember that Eddie Mabo did not need a Native Title Act. He did not even need a claim process. In Eddie Mabo's case his rights were recognised by the High Court under the common law of Australia and, importantly, those rights were not granted as a result of some kind of a claim. The court actually said that they just simply exist, and they had continued in existence since before European arrival because of his continuing connection that he had with the land and the waters. The court, therefore, decided to recognise those rights. Even if you do go down the path of pursuing the idea of sunsetting native title claims under the Native Title Act, it appears at first glance, based on the legalities of what we are looking at, that native title rights would nevertheless continue to exist. Our concern, therefore, is you do not really than give effect to paragraph (a)—you potentially cause more litigation and what you end up doing is pushing Indigenous communities into recognising those rights through claims by litigation under the common law. In other words, you could actually end up in a situation that is more complex and potentially sees an increase in litigation, which is something that I would have thought none of us want to see. I'm completely in support of paragraph (b) of Senator Hansen's motion. I think it is a really good path to take. What I don't want to see is lawyers benefiting out of an increase in litigation and money spent on legal fees. Ultimately, that will not improve outcomes for communities, and that is the concern we have in relation to paragraph (a). You could make the system more complex—not meaning to, but that could well be the end result. You actually lead to an increase in litigation, which I would have thought defeats the purpose of Senator Hansen's motion. But in relation to paragraph (b), the committee inquiry into: the effectiveness of the operation of the native title system options to improve economic development resulting from native title and options to improve certainty over the claim process. there are certainly merit of an inquiry by way of that formulation. 18:26 Senator 296215 Western Australia COX () (): Are we surprised that this is happening yet again? No, I'm not. Nidja bala cartwarra. It seems that every day there is another motion that is cooked up and rolled up in trying to get extra donations and staying relevant in the media. I want to be crystal clear before the onset of this. Native title is not what it should have been, and I thank Senator Cash for talking specifically about Eddie Koiki Mabo's High Court challenges. That was, in fact, about terra nullius, and he won twice in the High Court, not just once. And he did not have a big bag of cash of the $71 million that Senator Hansen mentioned before to challenge any of these cases. So this landmark decision could have and should have really changed the land rights for First Nations people in this country, who had so much taken away from them. This decision should have seen First Nations people enjoying their country and their rights to country, such as ngany moort, my Noongar and Yamatji heritage. And, for a short second, we relished in this victory and were hopeful of all that could have come from it. But then the Native Title Act was born. It came, only to end up with what can only be described as a mainstream definition of our connection to country. The ownership was misrepresented in this legislation, and it got rammed into a Western legal system and concept. We call ourselves traditional owners, but the concept of ownership is very different for First Nations people. We don't own the land in the sense of private ownership or even Crown land. We own the land in the sense that we see ourselves as part of the land, and they are not separate entities. In fact, there's no hierarchy involved in that. We are not above country and we do not own country at the exclusion of other people, unlike what some people are alluding to, particularly in this motion. We are here to nurture and care for our country, just as it cares for us. It is an interconnected relationship—that's the way I'd like to describe that. This is and has been a very hard description for a Western legal system with a Western understanding of property ownership rights—and Senator Cash has talked about that in great detail—which inherently means you own something at the exclusion of others because it's yours. That's what that does; it frames it in that way. Now, there definitely needs to be an inquiry into native title reform. I'm not going to stand here and say that there doesn't. It's not a perfect system; I believe it is not. First and foremost, the right to compensate people needs to be decoupled from the right for groups to say no in relation to particular projects on their country. That is the first thing. We have seen this clause in particular—and it is misrepresented—through native title groups to tell them that if they don't provide their free, prior and informed consent they don't have any right to compensation. That is the decoupling that needs to happen. The Native title: the way forward report following the Juukan Gorge debacle—and 'debacle' is the only way we can describe it—recommended that there be a review of native title and provided some really key points that should guide this review, such as the operation of section 31, the right to negotiate and the role of the National Native Title Tribunal. It also goes to the standards for negotiation of agreements to require adherence to the principles of free, prior and informed consent. These were at the heart of some of the evidence that I and people like Senator Dodson from my home state of Western Australia heard during the inquiry into the Juukan Gorge incident. And the prohibition of gag clauses: in this place people need to understand that those gag clauses are still in existence, in 40-year-old agreements in Western Australia—and clarifying the role of PBCs and land councils in relation to cultural heritage and the protection and preservation of that Aboriginal cultural heritage. The Greens would support this being framed in a way that would seek to strengthen the Native Title Act, would seek, as we've already been through an inquiry and heard evidence from industry and First Nations groups across the country, being able to continue to have a conversation that is well-informed and respectful in relation to what this means. So, I really struggle to think that, in forming this motion, Senator Hanson in particular doesn't understand or, frankly, respect just how difficult and timely it is to gather all the evidence that's needed to make a successful native title claim. And she wouldn't know, as she's already alluded to in her speech that she is not an Indigenous person, not an Aboriginal person. So, she wouldn't understand what that means, and the intense emotional labour that is constantly put on Indigenous people, First Peoples of this country, to have to prove their identity. We've had this yarn more than once in this place. That basically means we're translating 65,000 years of history and culture for whitefellas to understand, for a court to understand, for lawyers and others—legal teams—to understand and advocate for. Let me give you a real-life example—and it's great to see my fellow senators from my home state of Western Australia, because they will know this example very well. But I want to preface this by saying that there are still issues with this particular process, and we must continue to improve the systems that are built for us, not by us. The South West Native Title Settlement is the largest native title settlement in Australia's history. This settlement will affect an estimated 30,000 Noongar people and encompasses approximately 200,000 square kilometres, which is the size of Belarus, in the south-west part of Western Australia. We belong to the largest cultural block in the country. Of this settlement, there are a couple of parts that I'd like to address in detail. One is a recognition act that was put into the Western Australian state parliament, called the Noongar (Koorah, Nitja, Boordahwan) (Past, Present, Future) Recognition Act 2016. And it was the Noongar Boodja Trust that established and created nation-building activities to decolonise the system that was created for Noongar people—the resurrection of our language so that we could gain back all the things that are required for social justice for Noongar people. The Noongar land estate is up to 320,000 of development of cultural lands of cooperative and joint management agreements of national parks and a south-west conservation estate, land access to certain Crown lands for customary activities and the list goes on. This was brokered by Liberal government Western Australia, the Barnett government, which saw some sense in sitting down and talking it through after the court denied our people, after Justice Wilcox found that we had a 30,000-year-old connection to our lands and our waters in Perth. This process is far from perfect, as I said, but highlights 26 years of work. I want to acknowledge all of the applicants and all of the people who were part of this process. This motion before our chamber early this evening is to undermine the rights to claim native title; to remove our rights to negotiate; in fact, to get rid of them completely by putting a deadline on people being able to make any native title claims. I want to be really clear and really frank. This is not about native title. This is not about looking at economic development—I find that laughable. This is about cultural assimilation; that's what it is about. You cannot deny people their rights to their country, to their culture, to their songlines, to their birthing places, to their old peoples' stories being told for generations, for tens of thousands of years before colonisation in this country. The Greens are proud to stand here today and say that we are against that. We are against the fact that this motion would be brought to this place. It's a continual attack upon our people. [Noongar language] Noonakoort moort kwonbarr. Djinying nidjar mungart Boorah. Koort boodjar nidja ngaarl boodjar. Kaarl boodjar. Kaarl boodjar. In this place. It's the cleansing. We cannot continue to do this. We need to heal our people. It is disgusting that we continue to have these conversations. 18:37 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I rise to speak in favour of this motion. This is the house of review. The Senate is the house of review. We've had numerous speakers tonight say that the Native Title Act is not perfect, so why can't we have an inquiry into it? Don't let perfection be the enemy of good, so let's have a look into it. We need to ask ourselves: What is the problem here? Personally, I've always had an issue with native title because it's got no inbuilt redundancy. Are we still going to talk about native title in a 100 years, 200 years? Or will this Native Title Act finally be put to bed? While I concur with the original Mabo decision—that, if traditional owners can prove continuous association with the land then they are entitled to that land—I have a problem with the continual claims over unused council land or unused state land. I pay taxes. My constituents, fellow working Australians, also pay taxes. So to say they already don't have a claim over this land is ridiculous. There are parts of Redland Shire—the Waverton bowls club—and my old stomping ground in Sydney that have been basically given up to native title. There is no continuous association with land. For a very long time, the North Sydney Council used that particular bowling club as a bowling club. It was there for all the people of North Sydney, for other people in Sydney and for whoever may attend. So the idea we can now go and rewrite laws that say 'you have title over this' or 'you have title over that', when will it end? We are one country, and the fact that we have different laws for different races is actually a contravention of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. I don't usually like to rely on foreign treaties to get my point across—and this also applies to the Voice, mind you, which also has no inbuilt redundancy. Once it's in the Constitution it will be there forever as well. Quite frankly, I think that if the Native Title Act doesn't actually have a sunset clause then it also falls into a breach of the International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. I'll read out article 1.4 of that convention: 4. Special measures taken for the sole purpose of securing adequate advancement of certain racial or ethnic groups or individuals requiring such protection as may be necessary in order to ensure such groups or individuals equal enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms shall not be deemed racial discrimination, provided, however, that such measures do not, as a consequence, lead to the maintenance of separate rights for different racial groups and that they shall not be continued after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved. In other words, you cannot continue to have affirmative action, or any other action, once that standard of living has been improved. I just want to raise this again: the 1992 decision—the Mabo decision—that High Court decision was sound, even though I must admit it was a close contest. It was 4-3 between High Court judges. But it was reasonable: continuous grounds. And yet that particular condition of the original Mabo decision has been watered down over the years, where we are getting claims over a large part of Australia. This isn't actually doing anything to help the Aboriginal people at all. The only people this is helping are the lawyers, because this is a lawyer's picnic for claims against the federal government, or the state government for that matter—or local councils. Of course the lawyers are basically fleecing the pockets of taxpayers here. As usual, they use virtue-signalling to justify their extortion, but that's what we're looking at here. I think there does need to be an inquiry into this; I think it's time we called out the rorts. We also need to have a look at a section of the tax act: section 59 and, I think, 15 and 50, where land councils don't actually have to pay income tax on royalties and native title payments. Yet again, this cuts both ways. We always hear in this chamber about how the Aboriginals were dispossessed of their land and that somehow they've been discriminated against. But there have also been benefits brought into this country as well. I don't see why these measures have to continue indefinitely. There can be an argument about whether we can wrap it up by 2025, but let's have the inquiry and let's investigate that. But to say that it's not workable, or that there's one thing wrong so therefore we won't have the inquiry, I totally disagree with that. We've seen too much of this under the Albanese government: not enough transparency, not enough scrutiny and not enough accountability. The whole point of the Senate is that it's the house of review. The Native Title Act is now 30 years old, and I think it's due for a revision. We have to ask ourselves this: when they introduced the Native Title Act back in, I think, 1993, or 94 or 92—whatever—was this the intended result? That today, 30 years on, we have claims over various parts of Australia that are only going to get tied up in the courts, indefinitely? It's a lawyer's picnic, and various bureaucratic agencies will be involved to deal with these native titles disputes. Of course the problem with that is that these people aren't working on the front end, providing services to the regions where people do need help and where you can actually work on closing the gap. I'll leave it at that. 18:44 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Sometimes in this place it's a mistake to respond to the speaker who spoke before you. But I would ask, through you, Acting Deputy President Pratt, for Senator Rennick to reflect on how small-minded a comment that really is, to say— Senator Rennick 283596 That's a personal reflection, and I ask that he withdraw that remark. Senator AYRES 16913 I'm happy to assist the Senate by withdrawing. But to say 'when will it end'—just reflect on that phrase. 'When will it end?' From 235 years into a 60,000-year history in this country— Senator Rennick 283596 No evidence of that. You're making it up. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Senator Rennick, desist from interjecting, please. Senator AYRES 16913 It is an extraordinary thing to say. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Senator Ayres, please hold. Senator Rennick? Senator Rennick 283596 I ask you to direct Senator Ayres to make his remarks through the chair, please. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T I will draw that to Senator Ayres's attention. Senator AYRES 16913 Madam Chair, it is an extraordinary thing to say. Then to go on to say that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in this country have 'somehow been discriminated against'—how can you live in this country and not see what it is about us not to think clearly about our history? We are a stronger country when we reflect honestly on our history. When we see that tens of thousands of years right across the country, 60,000 years in some parts of the country— Senator Rennick 283596 Sixty thousand—there you go again. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Senator Rennick, desist from interjecting. Senator AYRES 16913 that should be a source of national pride. That should not be the subject of the sort of snide contribution that we just saw. The problem with this proposition, apart from the fact that it doesn't actually propose a genuine inquiry, that the outcome it seeks is not legally possible and, of course, the small question of fairness for native title claimants, is in its origins. I heard Senator Cash's contribution. I listened very carefully to her falling over herself to almost agree with Senator Hanson's proposal. Senator Hanson was expelled from the Liberal Party in 1996; I'm not sure it'd happen now. I think that, in some elements of the thinking that goes on here, she fits right in. What's happened in the extremist takeover of the backbench of the Liberal Party—the extremist takeover of what passes for an opposition in this place—is, of course, that it has opened the doors to the kinds of propositions— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Senator Ayres, please pause. Senator Rennick? Senator Rennick 283596 Senator Ayres is imputing motive. I would ask that he address the motion rather than go to discriminatory, prejudicial motives that he is casting upon Senator Hanson and myself. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Please continue, Senator Ayres. Senator AYRES 16913 So what is this all really about? It is about projecting imported, US-style extremist politics into this place and out there in the community—disinformation out there into the community. What's it really all about? The 'no' Voice campaign is exactly what this sort of bottom-of-the-barrel material is. Why has that been allowed to happen? It's been allowed to happen because the truth is that there is a strong case for the Voice to parliament. I respect the fact that not everybody agrees with it. I accept that absolutely. I accept the fact that there are conservative voices in Australian politics who support the Voice to Parliament. There are conservative voices in Australian politics who I respect who oppose the Voice to Parliament. There are competing strands of conservatism and liberalism that struggle to reconcile themselves over some of these questions, and I respect that absolutely. I've heard the articulation in this place for the 'yes' position from people on the conservative side of politics, and I've listened carefully. I've heard people on the conservative side articulate the 'no' case carefully and dispassionately. I don't agree with their proposition, but I accept that it's informed by their approach to traditional conservative or liberal values. The problem here is the takeover of the articulation of the 'no' campaign in the Liberal Party and the National Party by imported US-style extremism. It's say anything, do anything. Senator Rennick 283596 A point of order. He's imputing motive again, and he's not speaking through the chair. He's pointing deliberately and making personal reflections, rather than talking to the motion. I would ask that he maintains relevance and talks to the motion, rather than impute motives about people who disagree with the Voice. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Senator Rennick, is it an imputation of an improper motive? I don't know if you've taken offence to— Senator Rennick 283596 He is pointing at me directly. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T I will direct Senator Ayres to direct his remarks through the chair. If you believe that it is improper of him to impugn a motive in relation to US politics then you could rise and say what is improper about the motive. Senator Ayres. Senator AYRES 16913 It's clear when you listen to Senator Cash's contribution. She said, 'If we are going to have native title.' See, this strand of thinking about native title has been there all the way through. At every juncture where questions around native title have been raised in this place, people in the coalition are steadfastly opposed. Look at what happened around the Mabo decision, at the utter disgrace of leaders of the Liberal and National parties holding up maps, trying to frighten ordinary Australians with the idea that somehow their backyard was going to be subject to claims. In the Wik claim, there was exactly the same kind of utterly reprehensible behaviour. Why did they do that? Because they were trying to secure— Senator Rennick interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Excuse me, Senator Ayres. Senator Rennick, if you want to take points of order to ask Senator Ayres to adhere to the standing orders then you ought to do so yourself by not interjecting. Please continue, Senator Ayres. Senator AYRES 16913 Why did that happen? It was for narrow, base, political advantage in the same way that, when the Native Title Act came through this place, people on that side of politics claimed that the sky would fall in. When the apology to the stolen generations was made, people on that side claimed that the sky was going to fall in. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition in the other place said a whole lot of things that he has subsequently apologised for. He said he got it wrong. In the same year, he is making the same claims about the Voice to Parliament proposition. These claims of the sky falling in are completely consistent, and people over there expect that Australians are silly enough to have forgotten all of the other times that they have made the same claim. This extremist takeover is a problem for the Liberal and National parties. I see that Mr Mundine is using the 'no' campaign and extremist politics as a vehicle for securing his political ambitions to find his way into Liberal Party preselection. That is what his campaign is all about. Do you want to see more extremist politics in this place? Well, let's see how this proceeds. Firstly, on the inquiry, it is not a genuine proposal for an inquiry. It is a stunt that is there for social media purposes alone. Senator Rennick 283596 A point of order, Acting Deputy President: Senator Ayres is imputing motive about the motion and the inquiry. It is not his role to impute motive. If he doesn't want the inquiry, he can state the reasons why, but to say it's some stunt is to impute motive. That's partisan, and this chamber deserves better respect about a process. This is a house of review. We're entitled to review legislative acts of parliament without being vilified to the extent that Senator Ayres has done tonight. Senator AYRES 16913 On the point of order, if the threshold that is set for what you can say about a motion is that you can't say that something is a stunt, I think that's a very high threshold. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Senator Hanson? Senator Hanson BK6 I want that withdrawn. I want the comment that he made—that this is a stunt—withdrawn. Senator O'Sullivan 283585 If I can just contribute to the points of order that have been made here, my recollection of what Senator Ayres said is that it wasn't coming from something like a genuine place, and I think that does reflect on the motives of the mover of the motion. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Senator Ayres, we do seem to have had people in the chamber call for a rather strict adherence to the definition of impugning a motive. I am going to invite you to continue your remarks in a manner that debates the issues. Thank you. Senator AYRES 16913 Senator Hanson is on her feet. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Senator Hanson? Senator Hanson BK6 I said that I want that remark withdrawn. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T About a 'stunt', did you say? Senator Hanson BK6 Yes, I did. My notice of motion is not a stunt. I want that remark withdrawn. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Okay. Senator Ayres? Senator AYRES 16913 I'm happy to withdraw. Senator Hanson has clearly already worked out what she thinks this inquiry should achieve. The second problem here is, of course, that it's not legally possible to achieve what's being sought. The core outcome that the motion seeks can't be achieved. Native title rights are sourced from the traditional laws and customs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. They weren't just created by the Native Title Act. The High Court's decision in Mabo No. 2 in 1992 overturned the fiction that Australia was terra nullius—land belonging to no-one. It established native title as a fundamental right belonging to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in recognition of their traditional right to this land and their occupation of it for thousands of years. As a decision of the High Court, it is not something that is open to this parliament to just abandon. It can't be achieved. It is part of the fabric of our common law. The common law actually matters in this place. Any attempt by the parliament to create a sunset date would completely ignore what native title rights are and how they're recognised by law in Australia. Back in the 1990s, Australians were told that they would lose their backyards to native title. It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. Native title offers traditional owners the opportunity to build a better future for themselves and for their children. It empowers them to step up and play a role in managing land and waters, safeguarding cultural heritage and creating employment for their communities. The motion pretends to care about economic reforms or economic outcomes for native title holders, but that is clearly contradicted by its call for a sunset date. Each native title claim is different. Some are simpler and easier to resolve. Others involve complex issues that are outside of the applicant's control. There have now been 450 positive determinations of native title, and native title has been recognised to exist over 43 per cent of Australia. There are a further 139 claims for native title that have not yet been determined. Under Senator Hanson's proposition, in other words, that's at least 139 cases where native title claimants would be denied justice. I urge fellow senators to reject this ill-conceived and divisive proposal. 19:00 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia I speak to Senator Hanson's motion, which I'll read for clarification. It states: That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 4 June 2024: (a) the establishment of a sunset date in relation to submission of claims of native title, after which no further claims of native title can be made; and (b) the effectiveness of the operation of the native title system, options to improve economic development resulting from native title, and options to improve certainty over the claim process. We want an inquiry. Since the concept of native title was accepted by the High Court in the case of Mabo there have been mixed views from Indigenous and non-Indigenous commentators as to the benefits that have flowed to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. The extent and nature of these was spelt out in the now rather complex Native Title Act 1993 and some further decisions of the High Court, including the Wik case in 1996. The act sets out a bundle of rights, some exclusive and some non-exclusive. Some exclusive rights relate to traditional activities, including the rights to fish, hunt and gather within the determined claim area—and I note as an aside here that Minister Plibersek's latest piece of legislation seeks to take that away from Aboriginals, according to Aboriginals in northern Australia—but those rights cannot be transferred or on sold. Native title is extinguished by subsequent freehold and suppressed by leasehold, although that may revive at the expiry of the lease. Recent figures from the Native Title Tribunal indicate that determinations comprise more than 50 per cent of Australian land mass, more than half of our country. One of the features of the Native Title Act is the attempt to balance the rights of all parties. The use of Indigenous land use agreements is a way of establishing possible land use, including mining leases and other means of gaining some commercial benefit, registered for the traditional owners. These can be varied at some later time through the National Native Title Tribunal. When we were last in Cooktown we met with a local community leader, an upstanding man, who shared with us his views on native title and its impacts on his community and on many communities across Cape York. He said that native title was important from the aspect of recognition of the Indigenous perspective of their relationship with the land and recognising that Indigenous people were the first inhabitants of Australia and that they have inherent property rights in the land. His view was that the Native Title Act was not providing Indigenous people with something tangible, because they could not use native title to advance any individual interests. Land under native title cannot be mortgaged to help build a home or be used as collateral to support a business loan. The land is essentially locked up and not used to support small projects. It's really about seizing the land, holding it and not giving it to anyone to use. It's no wonder that we see the words 'United Nations' so frequently in the Native Title Act preamble. This is a land grab and the Aboriginals are not benefiting. Because the land is not freehold, nobody is able to work towards owning their own home because the property is now locked away out of reach. No-one is getting this land. The Commonwealth government are able to reclaim native title land and convert it to freehold, and some compensation is then paid to the traditional owners, but this does not benefit any individuals. People in the cities think that this was all fixed years ago. They don't realise that the No. 1 complaint in remote Aboriginal communities across the north of Australia is that they can't get access to land to have their own houses and their own businesses. With land ownership prevented, there is little incentive to work towards beneficial goals. My friend said that he wished to own his own place in this community. He cannot own his own place in the community. He wishes to build up and expand his small business as a shop owner but he cannot buy the premises. He must hope that he can lease the shop from the local traditional owners. These comments were echoed right across the cape by constituents, council mayors and council members, and in the Territory and, we've heard also, in Western Australia. It was universal. Not one person to whom we spoke had a good thing to say about native title, other than that it provides some recognition of them as First Australians. When asked about the government's closing the gap policy, he made the telling comment that the government was not serious about closing the gap because that would be contrary to the white and black Aboriginal industry that thrives on keeping Aboriginals dependent. With the exception of two Aboriginal members of parliament, Senator Nampijinpa Price and Senator Kerynne Liddle, Aboriginal senators—the other nine—don't talk about the white and black Aboriginal industry that consists of lawyers, consultants, activists, academics, politicians and bureaucratics who are living parasitically off the money that is given to Aboriginal communities. They've stolen it from the Aboriginal communities. The billions of dollars that are poured into solving the problem are siphoned off by those supposed to be assisting, and little of the money and other handouts makes it to those in real need. That's what's going on in this country. It's important for many people to keep the gap wide open. I listened to a councillor on Badu Island, up in the Torres Strait, about closing the gap. I've been across the cape twice, and to some communities three times. In every community we asked, 'What about closing the gap?' Some people said, 'What's closing the gap?' Others said, 'It's useless.' When we asked this particular councillor on Badu Island, he said to me, 'Malcolm, the point about closing the gap is that it will never be closed because there are people feeding off the maintenance of the gap.' The parasitic white and black Aboriginal industry are feeding off closing the gap. My friend went on to say that one of the biggest problems in communities was the lack of decent community housing. There were 19 people living in one of the local houses, and many people were homeless. In his community, 70 per cent of the residents were receiving welfare. Many were not coping. Mental health issues were climbing. What my staff have seen on Mornington Island is disgraceful. It's caused by the white and black Aboriginal industry. They perpetuate the misery so that they can get the funds. As I said, this was a common comment across the cape and up into the Torres Strait. Further north, a mayor told me that the problems also involved how grant moneys were divided up between the various interest groups, and again highlighted the housing and employment crises. There were no jobs and there was not enough housing. Why will only two Aboriginal members of this Senate discuss the white and black Aboriginal industry? I have to commend Senator Nampijinpa Price for doing so with vigour. She points out that that white and black industry is destroying accountability, and things in Aboriginal communities won't change without accountability. The people in the communities that I've listened to are hungry for autonomy and accountability. They want it. I understand that in 1998 John Howard, as Prime Minister, attempted to amend the Native Title Act by putting in place a sunset clause. John Howard, I'm advised, moved to put in place a sunset clause. As Prime Minister, what advice did he get on the legality? Senator Cash would get some answers to clause (a) if there was some form of inquiry. What's wrong with having an inquiry? Why do you keep blocking Senator Pauline Hanson wanting simple inquiries into basic, fundamental questions? As I understand it, before Cook arrived the Torres Strait Islands had some form of property rights, handed down from generation to generation, where the holder of the land was clearly recognised. But the mainland not so, I'm advised. We were reminded by Senator Rennick that the High Court decision on Mabo was very close: four to three. We need an inquiry to see how it's working and to go back to fundamentals. 'Thirty-one years,' Senator Rennick said. 'We need an inquiry. We're the house of review.' I concur with Senator Rennick. Senator Ayres raises the point about Aboriginal Warren Mundine possibly entering the Senate. I don't know, but does Senator Ayres not want Aboriginals in the Senate because of their views? No-one tonight has offered a solution to the native title problem of land locking, although revisiting Indigenous land use agreements and considering leases for individual housing projects may deserve further consideration. 19:10 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That the question be now put. Question agreed to. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 The question now is that the motion, as amended, moved by Senator Hanson be agreed to. Point of clarification, Senator O'Sullivan? Senator O'Sullivan 283585 I just want to be clear on the question. I understood that there was an amendment to the motion. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Yes. Senator O'Sullivan 283585 Has it already been amended? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 The question before the chair at the moment is that the motion as amended by Senator Hanson be agreed to. Is a division required? In that case, as it is after 6.30, the matter will be noted and the division will be completed, in accordance with standing orders, tomorrow. COMMITTEES 92 COMMITTEES Economics References Committee 92 Report 92 19:12 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia On behalf of the Chair of the Senate Economics References Committee, Senator Bragg, I present the report of the committee on compliance with an order for documents concerning the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 92 Reference 92 19:12 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That the question be now put. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Is a division required? A division will be called tomorrow in accordance with standing orders, seeing as it's past 6.30 pm. BILLS 92 BILLS Family Law Amendment Bill 2023, Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023 92

Family Law Amendment Bill 2023

Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023

Second Reading 92 19:16 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland It was Father's Day the other day. It was a good time to recognise how important dads are for children. It's something I think we sometimes forget. I do think mums are really important too—probably more important—but dads make a big difference in lots of children lives. Certainly, all the statistics show that, for kids who are lucky enough to have their biological father in their lives, it makes a big difference to them. It often makes a big difference to their development and it's something we should try to promote. I've got grave concerns for the legislation that's before us. It's not really a Father's Day present. The Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 and Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023, in my view, somewhat unnecessarily and inexplicably seek to minimise the importance of shared parenting, the importance of having both a mother and father in a child's life. I just don't think the government has fully explained here why it is up-ending nearly two decades of bipartisanship here on the principles of shared parenting. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Could I ask senators to take their seats for a moment. Senator Roberts, were you seeking the call on a point of clarification? Senator Roberts 266524 It is a point of order, because I was in continuance in the previous motion. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 The chamber has moved on, but I am seeking advice from the clerk on the matter you raised with me privately. If you could put to the chamber what it is that you are seeking clarification on, for the record. Senator Roberts 266524 I'm in continuance on the previous motion, No. 2, of business of the Senate orders of the day. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 I understand you were in the chamber and you wanted to speak in continuation on item 2 from the business of the Senate orders of the day. The minister stood. I gave the call to the minister. He moved that the question be put, and I followed on with the natural succession from there, so I'm afraid you missed your call. I'm happy to refer the matter to the President for her review. I gave the minister precedence and I certainly didn't see you stand. The ACT ING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 Let me take advice from the clerk in case that changes who I should have called at that time. If you could just give me a moment. In accordance with the practice of the chamber, we have already moved on to another item. To deal with your question, I will refer it to the President. I've already indicated that. But, just to be clear, my decision was that you did not jump and seek the call. Minister Ayres sought the call, I gave it to him and the question was put. We followed the standing orders in accordance with what I understood to be the proper order and I have taken advice from the Clerk. So I won't take your point of order on a matter which we have already moved on from and I will look forward with interest myself to the President's ruling tomorrow on this particular matter. Senator Scarr? Senator Scarr 282997 I respectfully request that you also refer to the President this concept of the chamber having moved on. I moved a point of order previously with respect to a matter which I considered to be disorderly. I didn't consider that I raised the point of order too long after the matter had arisen, but I used a reasonable amount of time to consult the standing orders and then, when I raised the matter as a point of order, I was told the chamber had moved on. So I respectfully request that also be considered as part of your referral— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 I'm very happy to refer that to the President, Senator Scarr. I'm sure she will, in concert with the Clerk, come back with some elucidating advice for all of us tomorrow. But I think it's pretty clear where we are up to at the moment. Just for clarity, we are returning to the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 second reading debate and Senator Canavan has the call. Senator CANAVAN 245212 Thank you. I was talking about how important fathers are to children's lives and that for some inexplicable reason—a reason that I don't think the government has outlined properly—the government is seeking to rip up a couple of decades of bipartisan consensus on the details around parenting orders in the very unfortunate situations where a mother and father do split up. Those guidelines were designed in the early 2000s through a bipartisan set of recommendations by what I think was a House of Representatives parliamentary committee. It was certainly chaired by Ms Kay Hull, an upstanding member for Riverina and a great contributor to this parliament. She has often been given accolades for the work she did on that report. I think it was titled Every picture tells a story, or something to that effect. As I said, the recommendations of that report were also supported by Labor members of parliament, including Jennie George, Harry Quick and upstanding members of the Labor Party. As a result of that report and those recommendations, the concept of shared parenting was enshrined in our family law. It's very important to say—and I know this bill does seek to deal with some of this issue—that that principle, the shared-parenting principle, did not set in stone that somehow a child must spend, even by default, fifty-fifty time with each parent. It was simply a concept that, as much as possible, there should be an equal amount of parenting involving both parents. That has been misinterpreted sometimes, I realise, by the courts or by parents who are negotiating something before they get to the courts. In some respects, the intent behind this legislation is admirable in seeking to clarify and simplify some elements of parenting orders which have, at times, generated confusion. As members of parliament, we often receive cases where that degree of confusion causes grave heartache for parents—and children, of course—going through very difficult times in their lives. So I don't object to the government seeking to simplify and clarify matters in regard to our family laws, but I do have grave concerns that, in doing so, they are throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. We have had, as I said, great consensus on that particular matter—about shared parenting. Indeed, in the government's explanatory memorandum they go to great lengths to try to indicate they're not necessarily moving away from that concept. But the concept itself has been removed from the underlying legislation. It seems very strange to me that such a central concept, one that is well-known to parents around Australia, would be removed from the underlying legislation. There is some suggestion that it might guide decision-making in what are very, very difficult circumstances but then potentially lead to a worse situation. Who knows how the Family Court might interpret this situation going forward? We don't know that for sure. Yes, explanatory memoranda can sometimes be considered by courts in their interpretation of the law, but normally that's in the event where the law is unclear. It's hard for me to understand how the law could be unclear here if the concept of shared parenting is not even in the law that would guide these decisions in the first place. The points that have been made by some of my colleagues in this debate are well made, and I hope that when we go to the committee stage and consider amendments there can be an open-minded discussion about these points. I very much worry that tinkering around with this system, without due regard to the consequences, could lead to some pretty poor outcomes for many Australian families. It's very important to note, on this point, the review the government commissioned—I believe it was the previous government that commissioned a review by the Australian Law Reform Commission into these matters—did not recommend removing the shared-parenting concept from the guidelines that would guide parenting orders. It's not really clear to me how the government has come to this conclusion, given it wasn't a recommendation of the ALRC. There have also been many other groups who have remarked on the absence of these guidelines and are seeking to have them put back in. I'm sure the opposition will move some amendments in this space, and I hope the government can give due consideration to them. There are other aspects of this bill that I and others in the opposition support. It makes sense to facilitate the coordination of information-sharing between agencies, especially where that may help identify risks to the child before a parenting order is put in place. That was a topic of the Law Reform Commission report on what is sometimes the inadequacy of those systems working. In the later schedule of this bill there is a provision for a greater degree of information-sharing, and I support that. I think it's a good step. I also support the attempt to simplify in this bill. The orders around parenting are included there. There is a need to make sure that there is greater clarity given through some of these changes. The objects of the bill are greatly simplified, sometimes in a way where we lose sight of the importance of putting the best interests of the child at the forefront of these matters. In doing so in some of the detail, there is also the issue of whether or not relying on testimony from children can or should guide orders. Obviously, children in these circumstances can be put in circumstances of duress by one or other parent—or in the worst cases both. We have to be very careful about how much weight we put on children's shoulders. Obviously, they're not at fault in any way or circumstance for the breakdown of a marriage, and whatever the situation, whatever the law, it's going to be a very traumatic experience for them. I really am a bit concerned about making that trauma even greater by potentially putting more emphasis on their testimony to what is in effect a court of law. There is also a concern about the use of independent legal—ILCs involving advocacy for children. We have to be careful about those changes. They play an important role, but some of the changes in the bill may deter lawyers from taking on these roles and therefore restrict the guidance that children and others might have in this situation. I also think this bill unnecessarily seeks to target the recent merging of courts. It's helped facilitate the conclusion of many family law matters. I think it was a very brave decision of the former Attorney-General, Christian Porter, to pursue the merging of courts. I know a lot of judges weren't too happy about the efficiency measures Mr Porter put in place, but we should run our court system for those who have to appear before it, especially, in this case, families. We should run the court system for the families, not for the interests of the judges. It seems to me that the current Attorney-General, Mr Dreyfus, is in some way taking the side of the legal fraternity over Australian families. He seems to have a target on the merging of the courts and, through this bill, is seeking to fast-track a review into the changes. I worry what that accelerated review might be seeking to find. Most governments don't ask to do reviews unless they know the answers to them. Maybe the fix is in here on this one. I would say the merging of those courts has led to very good outcomes in terms of the length of disputes and the number of cases backed up. That's despite all the hurdles courts have faced through this COVID era. So, it would seem to me, as we're now getting some experience out of the restrictions of coronavirus, that we should let this system work for a bit longer and let it work for the previously legislated time frame before conducting a review. We obviously should review these circumstances at an appropriate juncture, but I think the minister might have an ulterior motive in seeking to accelerate the review. Once again, my understanding is that that change to the act was not recommended by the Law Reform Commission, or even others, to my knowledge. It is something that seems to have popped out of the minister's office, given a bent that he seems to have. But I go back to where I started, about how important it is to get these arrangements right. Obviously we should seek to hope that all marriages can last, and the best circumstances for children is if they can stay in a loving marriage between their biological mother and father. All the evidence suggests the importance of that at an average level. You can always hope for the best, but you do need to plan for the worst, and sometimes, of course, marriages do break down and there needs to be a proper legal framework in place that protects the interests of the child, first and foremost, in that event. These are always very traumatic experiences for children, and it is best if we never have to rely on the courts and there is a cooperative process whereby arrangements can be worked out. I think we maximise the chances of such cooperation occurring if we have a legal framework that is well understood, that people can see will generate fair outcomes and where there can't be, through the courts—or we deny as much as possible through the court system—any advantage to one side or another, so they're not incentivised to go down a judicial path just to seek some self-interested outcome that may not be consistent with the best interests of the child. As I said, I'm not trying to stand against the reform of the family law system. Obviously the former government initiated a review in this space. We recognise the need to consider it. We also had a parliamentary inquiry, I think chaired by Senator Hanson, during the last government. So, there is an understanding here on this side of the need for some changes. But, as I said, I just warn that hopefully we do not throw that baby out with the bathwater, that the government, hopefully, in these contributions in the second reading debate and the committee stage, can explain why it's moving from the shared parenting system. I look forward to some of the amendments that might be brought forward by the opposition here and their discussion around them. As I mentioned, this was a bipartisan change 20 years ago. It would be regrettable if we had to make changes in such a sensitive area in a partisan way. So I hope the goodwill that was there a couple of decades ago can be rediscovered during this debate and that we can possibly come to a situation where all parties can be in support and therefore support all Australian families that must go through these very traumatic circumstances. 19:34 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I rise this evening to speak on the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 and the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023. As someone who has had the unfortunate experience of having to go through the family law courts and other areas of family law, this is a very fraught and difficult space to which legislators bring their minds and their experiences. When we look at the impacts of family breakdown across our nation not just on parents, mum and dad, but on grandparents, on the children themselves and the broader community, they are significant. They are long-lasting. In some cases, they are absolutely devastating on young people's development, on their ability to build loving and sustainable relationships into their adulthood and, indeed, on the economic foundation for some of the parents—obviously flowing through to the children. Unfortunately, tens of thousands of families across this country find themselves, often through no fault of their own, confronted with a bewildering, conflict-driven system of trying to work out arrangements, particularly for the care of children—but increasingly who pays for that care and which parts of it,—and it is a very, very difficult path to navigate, particularly if you are not families of a lot of means. The cost of lawyers and legal advice, the cost of mediation, the cost of having a former partner who would seek to score personal wins by drawing you into a legal debate that could take years to resolve have significant and severe economic, emotional and mental impacts. It happens everywhere. This is commonplace. We all have a story of a best friend, a family member, who has had a traumatic exposure to the family law system in this country. We need to, not only as legislators but also as individuals and community members, aim for a system that resolves disputes as quickly and as cleanly as possible, with minimum impact on children and, I'd have to say, on the parents' bottom line, because resources of both the father and the mother need to be applied to raising their children and ensuring they have the very, very best start in life. We need to make sure that the children's best interests are always served. Some measures in these bills, particularly the information-sharing bill, are very welcome to me and coalition senators. But there are issues around some of the proposals being put forward. Many of these changes are moved by good intentions. As we saw, it was 'pocket rocket' Kay Hull, who is now President of the National Party, I might say, the former member for Riverina who, in the Howard government, began the very difficult conversation in communities and with specialists around what changes we needed to make as a nation to the family law system that would better serve children's interests, that would better recognise both parents and that would not assume some of those cultural assumptions, I guess, that we as a country have had in our family law system. That was a good thing. The coalition's very real concern, though, is that although we join with the government in recognising the problems, many of the solutions presented in the bill remain untested and may make things worse for Australian families. While the economic pressures are being very severely felt by Australian families right now, we don't want to make any harder. When you look at divorce rates, one of the biggest impacts is actually economic pressure. It's not that people don't fancy each other any more, or can't remember why they bothered to fall in love with each other back at the start anyway, or have any less commitment to jointly raising their children—it is the pressures of modern life which often see marriages and partnerships break down, to the detriment of children. Right now, mortgages have gone through the roof. I think we've seen 11 cumulative interest rate rises, and if there were a couple over six months, families can buffer that, but when you've had one after another after another—many of those fixed mortgages are ending, coming off that mortgage cliff. Families have borrowed and fixed their mortgage for the last couple of years at the incredibly low rate that we saw through COVID, but are now faced with their mortgage payments tripling and quadrupling, with no consequent increase in their earning capacity. In fact, this week we've seen real wages go back to the tune of six per cent. That is the actual reality of what's been played out in our suburbs and our regional capitals. Real wage is the figure that people feel in their back pocket and bank accounts while simultaneously facing energy prices on the rise, food inflation ahead of where it was 12 months ago, and mortgage pressures. That is all playing into a family dynamic that isn't going in the right direction. So we need to have a family law system that puts children's interests first but also we need to make sure that both parents can leave a relationship in a way that allows them to be the very best parent they can be, in both of their capacities. As legislators, we should be very cautious about making things worse because we haven't tested and really delved into the impacts of some of the solutions presented by this bill. The most significant part of the schedule would repeal most of the factors that courts must consider when determining the best interests of the child, and that list of factors is incredibly long. There are two primary considerations and 14 additional considerations. The list runs to over three pages and almost 900 words. It's very confusing and difficult for parents and courts, and it absolutely should be simplified. Not everybody can afford a King's Counsel to take them to the law courts, and not everybody is eligible for legal aid, particularly in family law matters. While wounds are very real and raw and present in the breakdown of a partnership, it is very easy for either side to run to the lawyers and then inflict cost after cost on the other party. The more complex we make this, and the harder we make it for mum and dad in suburbia to negotiate this legal system, the more we push them into higher individual legal costs, which in the end will impact their joint ability to provide for their children. The simplicity, I think, is underestimated. When emotions are high, people make decisions that maybe they shouldn't. Maybe, in the fullness of time, after many years, when they settle into a rhythm and pattern of single parenthood but as joint custodians of their fabulous children, they'll wish that they had approached this differently at the very beginning. So I'm very, very concerned that this bill sets up a scenario where we push the aggrieved party or the other into the arms of lawyers, and therefore force both parties into a system which just leads to more costs, more complexity, more anxiety and more stress. None of this, when you get home, makes it any easier for the children they're both trying to care for. One of the issues requires the court to consider any views expressed by the child. Obviously, in principle, that's absolutely appropriate—that a child should be heard. But any parent who sits in this chamber and doesn't know that a four-year-old, a six-year-old or a two-year-old can be coached by either parent, who they love very, very much and who they trust very, very much, is kidding themselves—absolutely kidding themselves! I think that concern has been raised by the profession and should be listened to. I think back about to how I would get certain of my four fabulous young adults on the bus in the morning, or to put their uniform on or to do things that they didn't want to do. Parents are very, very persuasive influencers of their children's behaviour, as they should be. That's why we've been given the responsibility and the great privilege to parent. But when partnerships break down, and we've all seen it with families and friends, one party or another doesn't always have the best interests of the child at the very core of their behaviour. That's a result of pain, of hurt and of anger et cetera. But to assume that isn't the case is actually neglecting the lived experience of tens of thousands of Australians who've had to go through this particular situation. It's worth noting the concerns raised by some in the profession that the Labor list risks overlooking a number of other important factors, including the child's maturity or level of understanding. It's much easier to get a two-year-old to put their gumboots on than a 12-year-old and it's much easier to get a three-year-old to eat their broccoli than a 13-year-old! So maturity and developmental capacity have to be part of the court's assessment. Right now, there are serious concerns that it's not. Has a parent been engaged in parenting in the past, including their obligations to maintain the child financially? Think of the FIFO worker who genuinely loves their child. They're off working incredible hours, far away from family and support, and they haven't necessarily been involved in the day-to-day obligations of raising the child. But they have absolutely been involved in financially supporting the child. How do you reconcile both of those different roles? Then there's the likely impact on a child of a change in circumstances; we can't foresee that. So there are still many, many questions for this bill and for us to actually seek to obtain a greater level of understanding from the experts—from those who are delegated to act on behalf of children, like child psychologists. That's the level of evidentiary fact that we need to take into account when we consider this bill, because we do need a legal system and a family law framework that works for parents and for children and which means that the next generation of Australians will get all the support they need, despite a family breakdown, to be the very best humans they can be as adults. 19:49 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I too rise to speak on the Family Law Amendment Bill and the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill, which are two very important pieces of legislation because, undeniably, family breakdown needs to be managed with the utmost sensitivity. Family law has an extraordinary and direct impact on the Australian community and on the families that seek the support and services of the law in order to settle disputes that are seemingly often unresolvable, so it needs to be a system that is designed in a way that gives Australians who rely on it some of the support they need as they navigate what is probably one of the most difficult times in their lives. We know, sadly, no matter the best of intentions, tens of thousands of Australians will find themselves in need of the support of the family law system as they go through the distress, pain and sadness of separation. Luckily, only a small proportion of those cases, disputes, will be decided by a judge in the family law courts. As a nation, we must aim for a system that resolves those disputes as quickly, as cleanly and as fairly as possible. Children, clearly, are involved, so we should prioritise the interests of the children as we work our way through. The Family Law Amendment Bill and the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill contain measures that the coalition unquestionably supports wholeheartedly, most particularly the provisions that are contained in the information-sharing bill. There are a number of areas that the measures in the Family Law Amendment Bill seek to address, but we are really concerned that the proposed solutions either go too far or have not been appropriately tested. There is no doubt that the changes contained in this bill have been put forward with the very best of intentions. We join with the government in recognising that these bills do seek to address a number of problems that clearly do need a solution. But in too many places, the proposals that have been put forward by this bill we as a coalition don't believe align with the problems that they are seeking to solve. They go beyond the recommendations we've seen in previous reviews. They are not all necessarily supported by the profession. Unintended consequences have been highlighted through the process or they have not been road tested in communities and on the ground to make sure that the people who will be directly impacted by the changes contained in these bills have been properly consulted. Because at the end of the day, a policy that is made without the people it impacts in the room where the policy is being developed will be a policy that will not be as good as policy that is designed with the people in the room. So, although we recognise the problems, the coalition has real concerns that some of the measures put forward by the government through these bills will actually make things worse for Australian families. In all conscience, we cannot say in this place we are doing our jobs as legislators and regulators if what we put forward is actually making a situation worse. So we need to be very, very cautious as we move forward with these bills to make sure we are not doing something that, without necessarily intending to but because it has not been road tested and because it has not been consulted properly, actually makes things go worse. But it is particularly worrying, because it is becoming a bit of a track record of those opposite, that we see pieces of legislation put into this place that sound good on the surface but, when you start scratching the surface, you realise that they are not quite as good as they may sound. We've seen so many times that the announcement that grabs the headline in the paper is the thing that this government is trying to secure. They have not done their homework. They have not done the hard yards. They have not done the consultation to determine what the actual consequences of this legislation or these policies are for the people who are impacted by them. Because they don't do their homework, because they don't attend to the detail, we start to see things unravelling. We've seen it time and time again with policies that have come into this place, and it concerns me, when we're talking about a policy area as important and as sensitive as when we're dealing with the Family Law Act, that once again we've seen legislation brought forward that has not been properly considered and that the flow-on impacts of some of the changes have not been mitigated in any way. So this is something that, clearly, the coalition is particularly concerned about, and we'll be very keen to continue to prosecute this to make sure that the government actually understands that there are some significant concerns. We really hope that, in the interests of making sure that we protect Australians who need this really important service, the government will actually consider any amendments that are put forward that seek to make this bill better and not be belligerent and bloody-minded and just try and force the bill through as it is. Equally, I would hope that those at the other end of the table, the Independents and the Greens, would like to try to make sure that the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 is as good as it possibly can be because of the importance of this for Australians who are probably going through some of their darkest hours as they have to sort out a marriage break-up where children are involved. In looking at the schedules that are contained in this bill, we see that schedule 1 would repeal most of the factors that the court must consider when determining the best interests of a child. I don't think that anybody in this place would dare to stand up and say that, when it comes to family breakdown and the resolution of that breakdown, the interests of the child should not be absolutely paramount in any decision-making, and we understand why the government has sought to address this. The list of factors is just way too long. It runs over three pages and almost 900 words. It's confusing and difficult for parents and courts, and it should be simplified. But there are some real concerns about the simplified list of considerations that has been proposed by this bill, because the list that Labor has put forward requires only that the court consider the benefit of a child being able to have a relationship with the child's parents and other people who are significant to the child where it's safe to do so. The list does not say anything about the relationship having to be meaningful. I would have thought that a meaningful relationship is absolutely what we should be seeking to ensure. Omitting the word 'meaningful', albeit just one word, makes a really significant and substantial change to the meaning of what the court needs to undertake when determining the best interests of the child and in relation to the relationship that the child has with their parents. It sends a really significant signal to the court about the type of relationship that is important and the interests of the child. We are very concerned about the signal that the removal of the word 'meaningful' sends about the quality of the relationship that is being sought for the child to have with their family. For example, a supervised visit once a month may well be a relationship, but it may not necessarily be a meaningful relationship. Bodies like the Law Council of Australia have expressly raised this as an issue which should be corrected. So we are very keen to point out that this oversight in the legislation that the Albanese Labor government is seeking to bring into this place now must be rectified. Labor's simplified list also requires the court to consider what arrangements would promote the safety of the child and each person who has care of the child. But, astoundingly, Labor's list does not require the court to consider existing family violence orders and the basis on which they were made. This is an issue that we in the coalition raised time and time again during the committee process. The failure to include family violence orders in these changes just adds weight to our concerns. The A e5x Order! You will be in continuation, Senator Ruston, when the debate resumes. ADJOURNMENT 98 ADJOURNMENT European Union-Australia Free Trade Agreement 98 20:00 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales It wasn't long ago this nation was referred to as Fortress Australia. It was categorised by high tariffs, trade barriers and limits on international capital investment. While this development strategy was part of our journey to prosperity, by the mid-1980s it had reached the end of its relevancy. The world was about to enter an unprecedented era of global trade and commerce, and Australia was well positioned to take advantage of its unique place in a burgeoning region. It was the Hawke-Keating government that floated the Australian dollar, dismantled trade barriers and opened the floodgates to foreign capital, preparing the nation to reap an unprecedented period of economic growth and prosperity. The Labor legacy is one that both sides of the chamber rightfully celebrate as an important moment in Australia's economic history. In this the vein, the Albanese government is determined to continue to expand and promote the many national advantages of the global trading system through the ongoing negotiation of the European Union-Australia Free Trade Agreement. The European Union and Australia are natural partners who share a common commitment to the rule of law, democracy, open markets and global trading norms. This creates a strong basis from which a natural expansion of trade should commence. As a bloc, the European Union was Australia's third largest two-way trading partner in 2021-22, as well as our sixth-largest export destination and third-largest services export market. Further, the European Union was Australia's second-largest source of foreign investment in 2021. That's why Australia is seeking an ambitious and comprehensive free trade agreement with the European Union to drive Australian exports, economic growth and job creation. Currently, Australian goods and services face high tariffs from the European Union. This includes 12 per cent on minerals and metals; 10 per cent on wood and paper; and seven per cent on chemicals, with a range of non-tariff trade barriers on agricultural products such as beef, rice and cheese. With the bilateral relationship already extremely developed, imagine the possibilities of fully liberalised trade. I would also like to highlight to my European colleagues that, in a time of high inflation, lower priced Australian exports present a valuable financial lever to bring down costs of kitchen table essentials while also maintaining a first-class product. This is also not to mention the services potential from Australians eager to use their skills in the European union. The European Union comes to benefit from Australian professionals born, raised and educated in Australia, who then migrate to the European Union, contribute to the economy and pay European taxes. A free trade agreement is an opportunity to establish a framework for the mutual recognition of professional licensing and qualifications. That's as well as a greater capacity for skilled professionals entering the European Union labour market. Further, Australia and the European Union can benefit from both our transparent legal systems to facilitate more mutual investment in safe, predictable business environments. Europeans have an opportunity to reap the rewards of our growing economy and unprecedented opportunities, while Australia can benefit from the additional capital, technologies and ideas emerging from Europe. That's why in my capacity as the chair of the parliamentary friendship groups for Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Ireland, I will table a letter urging these nations, as proud members of the European Union and European economic area, to expedite negotiations for a fair trade deal for all parties. My co-chairs, Senator Paterson and Senator O'Sullivan, have agreed to co-sign a letter to that end. I look forward to discussing the matter further with our colleagues as we start to exercise the benefits of having our parliament-to-parliament friendship. It's at moments like these that we draw on the travel we do overseas; that we act in the national interest to make sure we get the best possible deal for Australians while extracting a fair deal from those who wish to negotiate. The Albanese government, in its short time in power, has already implemented trade agreements with India and the United Kingdom—in record time. We're now seeking to strike while the iron is hot. We'll be clear, though, that we will not sign a deal unless it's fair to all parties involved and in line with our national interests. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 99 20:05 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I rise this evening firstly to give my heartfelt thanks to the Queensland Chinese Forum for putting on a wonderful seminar, on Saturday just gone, in relation to the Voice. In particular, I congratulate the Queensland Chinese Forum on taking an even-handed approach. There were three speakers in favour of the constitutional amendment and three speakers against. Three of those speakers were from this chamber: Senator Liddle and I on behalf of the 'no' campaign and Senator Murray Watt on behalf of the 'yes' campaign. So the Queensland Chinese community had an opportunity to hear both sides of the debate. The seminar was extraordinarily well attended, and it was live-streamed, with people watching online and people being able to watch it subsequently. Hats off to the translators, who did a wonderful job in translating some of the complicated content. From my perspective, it is a good example of how the debate should continue from today up to the date of the referendum. Now let me go to the other end of the spectrum, in terms of how the debate shouldn't be conducted. Last week I stood in this chamber and spoke about a high school in my home state of Queensland where only one side of the debate was presented to students of voting age. They weren't given both sides of the debate. I also spoke about a university student who submitted an assignment in which she had courageously undertaken legal arguments for the 'no' case and been told in no uncertain terms by the assessor that her views were not appreciated. I asked for reports of further such instances. Disappointingly, I have received further reports. In the time available, I have the chance only to provide comments in relation to one. It relates to the University of Melbourne law school, one of our country's pre-eminent law schools. This was the faculty, the law school, that produced the likes of Owen Dixon, Isaac Isaacs and John Latham, all chief justices of the High Court of Australia. The report I've received is that 600 first-year university law students were provided a compulsory seminar which presented to them only one side of the constitutional referendum: three speakers in favour, no speakers against the constitutional referendum at the University of Melbourne law school. Please, University of Melbourne Law School, contact me and tell me it's not so. If it's not so, I will stand in this place before the end of the week and clarify the matter. But I must say that I looked on your website today to see what the position of the University of Melbourne is, and the University of Melbourne is taking an institutional position in favour of the Voice. It also has on its website a list of expert opinions on the Voice, and every single one of them is in favour of the university's institutional position. There is not one argument against. If you want to teach first-year law students how to be lawyers, introduce them to the Socratic method for understanding both sides of an argument, for and against, and developing their own talents of critical thinking. Don't present them with propaganda, as if there's only one side to an argument. You are doing them a disservice and you are not respecting your heritage—a heritage that did produce the likes of John Latham, Owen Dixon and Isaac Isaacs, giants of the legal fraternity in this country. Tell me it's not so. Tell me you didn't take those 600 first-year law students into a seminar and give them only one view with respect to the constitutional referendum. Contact my office and tell me it's not so, that you actually provided a seminar where both sides of the argument were put so they could assess and weigh those competing arguments as they will have to do as lawyers. Please tell me the information I have received is wrong. If you don't tell me the information I've received is wrong, I will take your silence as an admission that it's correct just as your internet site produces one side of the argument. Northern Rivers: Floods 100 20:10 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I was in the Northern Rivers last month to listen to stories from the front lines from those affected by the floods in February 2022, and I was joined by Greens candidate for Richmond Mandy Nolan and Byron Bay local councillor Duncan Dey. I'm sad to report that, 18 months down the track, it is obvious that both the state and federal governments have failed to support residents in distress. Many homes remain unliveable and many more are still damaged, and people are still struggling and suffering. Housing programs such as the pods, which were meant to be temporary, are not only still utilised by residents but are, in fact, full. Due to high demand, pod villages in the Northern Rivers are currently at capacity, with long waiting lists. There's no certainty around how long this temporary accommodation will be needed and where the funding will come from to keep it going. Climate disasters have a very deep and broad impact that crosses different sections of the community, and the effects vary depending on who you are. In my visit one cohort that greatly sticks out is women, in particular women over 50 and older single women. These women are often invisible to policymakers and decision-makers. Women have always had to fight for equality. We know that. Gender inequality is a structural and systemic issue, and the link between climate and inequality is pretty clear in the Northern Rivers and plays out in flood recovery as well. These are women already impacted by the gender pay gap. They have less super, limited earning capacity, inability to access a loan and limited savings, if any. These intersections of economic and gendered inequality are further exacerbated by the climate crisis. These women feel sandwiched between being on the front lines of this climate disaster and also having primary caring responsibilities such as looking after their parents, their children and, in many cases, their grandchildren as well. When the floods came, they lost their possessions, including their cars. They were unable to get support to help with sandbagging or lifting furniture prior to the flooding. Many have moved from one rental accommodation to another many times over. So many impacted by the Northern Rivers floods are still not back in their homes, unable to return due to the damage caused by these floods. They told me about the hoops they have to jump through to get repairs done—the endless online forms or the exhausting appeals processes they've had to do for insurance companies, for instance. Repairs aside, there's an even bigger problem they are contending with. In Mullumbimby especially, there is no pathway to adaptability and the structural changes needed for their homes should there be another climate disaster and another flood. For example, insurance companies may cover the damage caused by floodwaters, but there is no money for raising the house. Governments need to step in now and provide the funds so that homes can be raised before the next flood. One woman, Noelle, whose house we visited to look at the flood damage, is still struggling to return to normal, and so is her community. She told us about the difficulties of navigating the insurance claim system, about the distress and trauma from this, about paying rates and perhaps even insurance for a home that they're unable to live in, about many women navigating health issues from menopause, breast cancer and anxiety to COVID while suffering from the flood impacts. They are calling on the federal government to step in and to invest in communities. My Greens colleague in the NSW parliament, Tamara Smith, MP for Ballina, is calling on the NSW Labor government to step up and deliver the second tranche of funding that was initially promised to her community, because thousands are going without the buy-backs, without retrofits and without raises to their homes that they need to survive future extreme weather. While communities are staring down the barrel of more devastation and climate-induced disasters, Labor governments are continuing to subsidise climate-wrecking oil and gas projects to the tune of billions of dollars, which will make future disasters even worse. But where is the funding and support for those who are being hit by the aftermath of these terrible decisions? How long will they have to wait? They are sick and tired of waiting. I implore you to listen to the community and women like Noelle. It is time to act now. Dementia 100 20:15 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise to bring the Senate's attention to Dementia Action Week, which takes place from 18 to 24 September. It is a week of action led by Dementia Australia, and this week's theme is Act Now for a Dementia Friendly Future. There are almost 500,000 Australians living with dementia as I speak, and two-thirds of people with dementia live in communities across the country. In Tasmania it's estimated there are almost 10,300 people living with dementia. You can become a dementia friendly activist by going to the dementiafriendly.org.au website. Raising awareness and increasing understanding about dementia in our communities, and how that in turn can have an extraordinary impact on the day-to-day lives of people living with dementia, their families and carers, is what being a dementia friendly activist is all about. A more inclusive, respectful, compassionate and understanding community that values senior Australians is a better community, a community we can all be proud of. Staying home might feel safer and make it easier to avoid confusion or potentially embarrassing situations, but people with dementia deserve to be living amongst everyone, and we all have a duty to make them feel welcome in our communities. There is no greater gift in this world than to feel welcome and understood, to feel confident that you can keep doing the things you want to do for as long as you want. When our communities become dementia friendly, it will lead to less fear, a greater understanding of dementia, less stigma and more inclusive support to keep people active in our communities for longer. I urge people to get involved in Dementia Action Week. You can use the range of resources available on Dementia Australia's website which include events, toolkits and tips. I thank Dementia Australia and their team for the work that they do every day to make Australia a dementia friendly country. I'm proud to be part of the Albanese Labor government, which is putting the care of Australians and the economy at the top of the government's agenda. We went to an election saying that we would put more nurses in residential aged care and give aged-care workers more time to care for residents, and we're doing this. We have also instigated a pay increase for aged-care workers, a wonderful achievement and something I have campaigned for for many, many years. From the first full payday from 30 June this year, minimum award wages increased by 15 per cent for workers in residential aged care who are paid under the aged-care award or the nursing award. The Albanese government cares about the care economy, which is why we have prioritised the health, aged care, disability and social services sectors to ensure Australians receive the care and respect that they deserve. I recall the words of the final report of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, which stated Dementia care should be core business for aged care services, and particularly residential aged care services. The Albanese government wholeheartedly endorses this sentiment because people living with dementia in our communities and within residential aged care deserve to live with respect and dignity. A dementia diagnosis does not mean the end of your life as you know it. No, it means you deserve to live in your community for as long as you want, and the community will ensure it provides a dementia friendly community to live in. We know that 70 per cent of the almost 500,000 Australians with dementia are living in the community and that 70 per cent of residential aged-care residents have moderate to severe cognitive impairment. The only way to ensure quality care for people living with dementia is to invest in our care economy and invest in our people. There must be compulsory dementia training for aged-care workers, and this should be extended out into the community. So, if you work in a bank, in retail or in other businesses, you should have an understanding of what the journey is like for those people who have been diagnosed with dementia. We need to be more passionate and we need to be more respectful. But what we also need is that people working in aged care, whether in residential care or caring for people in their own homes, should get an additional allowance if they have dementia training. We have to incentivise people to take that next step. Senate adjourned at 20:20