2023-10-16 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Monday, 16 October 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 Rearrangement 1 10:02 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia by leave—I move: That— (1) The business before the Senate be interrupted at 11 am today to enable a minister to move a motion relating to the Hamas attacks on Israel and the ongoing conflict. (2) Debate on the motion be adjourned following the conclusion of speeches by party leaders and independent senators, or at 1.30 pm, whichever is earlier. (3) That on Tuesday, 17 October 2023: (a) the routine of business from 7.30 pm be further consideration of the motion, and at the conclusion of the debate, the question on the motion be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting; and (b) the Senate then adjourn without debate. (4) The order of 14 September 2023 relating to compliance with an order for the production of documents concerning the NDIS Financial Sustainability Framework be varied this week to require the ministerial explanation to be provided after the placing of business on Tuesday, 17 October 2023. Question agreed to. BILLS 2 BILLS Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023, Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023 2

Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023

Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023

Second Reading 2 10:03 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria I rise to discuss the Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023. Regrettably the coalition is not in a position to support this bill as it is currently drafted. I want to start by saying, and really emphasising, the coalition of course supports efforts to engage more with our Pacific neighbours. We understand how important it is that we engage constructively in our region in a way that lifts up the people of the Pacific. It's why we put in place successive strategies to make sure we are engaging in the right way with our Pacific neighbours, and it's why the coalition invested record amounts in the Pacific when we were in government. We support the concept of a Pacific engagement visa. However, we do not support the awarding of visas being done by a lottery or ballot. The coalition supports a well-structured, well-planned immigration policy, and we are willing to work with the government on a model for a fairer Pacific engagement visa that delivers better outcomes for Australia and our Pacific neighbours. Permanent residency that ultimately leads to Australian citizenship is too important, in our view, to be decided by chance. These two bills will, for the first time, create a ballot process for the issuing of Australian visas. This is not something that we have done as a country before. The first bill establishes the lottery scheme, while the second bill establishes how you enter the lottery scheme—namely, by paying a dollar amount to enable you to go into the lottery. The process to obtain a visa, to obtain permanent residency and ultimately to embark on the pathway to citizenship should not, in our view, depend on luck or chance. This is a significant departure from the way in which Australia has conducted its immigration process over many decades. While I'm sure this is not intended by the proponents, we believe it has the effect of devaluing the worth of each applicant by not taking into account their personal merits or circumstances. The bill will create a precedent that can be used not just for the Pacific engagement visa but for any future visa that the government of the day may decide to introduce. This has the potential to turn Australia's immigration system on its head. Instead of our current immigration policy, which is based on attracting skilled migrants who contribute to the economy, the government proposes to introduce a lottery to decide who can become a permanent resident, and that is not a system that the coalition can support. There are a number of unanswered questions about how the scheme would work in practice. While the government has stated that the eligibility criteria for the visa will include age, English language, health and character requirements, as well as requiring a job offer for the primary applicant, it appears the visa will not have skill level or occupation requirements. The visa would therefore not be aligned with the skilled stream of Australia's migration program, which targets young, highly skilled migrants who can make an economic contribution to our country as well as temporary migrants who make an economic contribution by addressing workforce shortages. We are concerned that there is no requirement for prior work experience in Australia, under the government's proposed approach, which will increase the risks of visa recipients and their families experiencing difficulties in their settlement in Australia. I understand that some of our Pacific neighbours are strongly supportive of this Pacific engagement visa and that they will be disappointed by our decision not to support the government's proposed approach today, but I want to reassure them that the coalition are strongly committed to providing employment opportunities in Australia for citizens of Pacific island nations and Timor-Leste. It was the previous coalition government which delivered on this commitment through the PALM scheme, which has been enormously successful. We remain very strongly supportive of mechanisms which provide employment opportunities and pathways to permanent residency for citizens of Pacific islands and Timor-Leste. Importantly, we are supportive of the principle of the Pacific engagement visa; we just don't think that a lottery is the right approach. We have consistently expressed our willingness to work with the government and Pacific nations to develop a sustainable Pacific engagement visa which provides a pathway to permanent residency, particularly for those who've demonstrated a work capacity in Australia. We believe that the PALM scheme could provide a suitable vehicle through which to develop a Pacific engagement visa. Through the PALM, we have a Pacific employment scheme that is working incredibly well. PALM has provided many of the benefits sought by all parties, including Australia and Pacific islands nations as well as employers, individual workers and their families and communities, who benefit greatly from the remittances which are sent home. PALM already has a strong support system in place to assist new workers to settle into life and work in Australia, and we consider this aspect fundamental to the long-term sustainability of any new policy approach. We believe that a period of proven successful work participation in Australia under PALM should create a qualification for a potential Pacific engagement visa. This would avoid the need for a lottery and ensure that the visa recipient was better placed to successfully take up permanent residency in Australia. We would of course be prepared to sit down with the government and discuss options for how the PALM scheme could provide a pathway for Pacific islanders to access the Pacific engagement visa, but we will not entertain the idea of introducing a lottery which you pay a fee to enter. This approach will only serve to diminish the integrity of our visa system. Australia has long enjoyed strong bipartisan support for our nearest neighbours in the Pacific and Timor-Leste, and we want to see that continue. I very sincerely reiterate that we'd be able to support a Pacific engagement visa and we're willing to work with the government to find a workable model. I hope that the government is able to support the second reading amendment that I will be circulating in the chamber shortly, which rejects the lottery and proposes the coalition's alternative approach. I hope the government will see fit to sit down with the coalition and work through this issue. If they don't then sadly we'll be unable to support the legislation, because we think that they're putting in place a principle which fundamentally undermines the immigration system of this country and are missing an opportunity to develop a fairer Pacific engagement visa that delivers better outcomes for Australia and our Pacific neighbours. I should say we, of course, understand the broader context of this proposed legislation. We understand that the government is trying to bring all tools of statecraft to bear on the challenges that we face in the Pacific, and we stand with the government in being willing to facilitate all of those. But we have an in-principle difference with the government when it comes to the process of allocating these visas which we have clearly articulated throughout this process: through the debate in the House of Representatives many months ago and through our negotiations and meetings with the government consistently. Without any changes to that fundamental stumbling block, we are not going to be able to support the bill in its current form. 10:10 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania As Senator Paterson has, I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023. The Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill seeks to amend the Migration Act to provide for a visa pre-application process in the form of a ballot. Despite the title of this amendment bill, it does not explicitly or exclusively provide for the proposed Pacific engagement visa. Instead, the amendment bill provides the power to regulate, through disallowable instruments, which visa subclasses the ballot can be used for, who will be eligible to participate in the ballot and the arrangements for the conduct of the ballot. I want to be really clear about the elements of this legislation that relate to Australia's foreign policy and to our relationships in the Pacific region. The first thing to say is this: if the government were serious about being a good neighbour to our friends in the South Pacific, the first thing the government would do is stop approving new coal and gas mines. Anything else that this government does, other than stopping approving new coal and gas mines, is simply fluttering around at the margins. Climate change is an existential threat for many South Pacific nations. They literally risk disappearing off the face of the earth. What's this government's policy response? While on one hand they continue to open new coal and gas mines, on the other hand they go to our friends in the South Pacific and say, 'Boy, have we got a visa scheme for you!' Let's be really clear about this. If this government genuinely wanted to do the most significant and meaningful thing possible, if this government genuinely wanted to be a good neighbour and a good leader in the context of the South Pacific, it would stop approving new coal and gas mines. But, of course, the government's not going to do that, because the coal and gas corporations have got their hooks into the Labor Party just as deeply as they have their hooks into the Liberal Party. The institutionalised bribery of political donations is what is forcing this government to continue to approve new coal and gas mines. That is what is enabling the continued destruction of the future of so many Pacific island nations. So let's be very clear about what this bill doesn't do. It doesn't, of itself, take the strong stance that Australia should be taking against new coal and gas projects, and I remind folks in this chamber that that is what South Pacific nations are asking for—no new coal and gas—because climate change is such an existential threat to so many nations in the South Pacific area. Instead of, or perhaps as well as, providing a visa scheme for folks from the South Pacific, the Albanese government should ensure that it stops approving new coal and gas mines. As an aside, I urge the government and the minister for immigration to think about what the global movement of people is going to be and specifically what the movement of people in the South Pacific is going to be as climate change rolls along over the coming years and decades. As some South Pacific nations literally disappear off the face of the earth, we will need to ensure that we step up and provide an opportunity for safe haven for those people who are displaced. It will take a lot more than what has been proposed in this legislation for us to be able to meet that aspiration. The Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023 provides for a fee to be charged to people registering in a pre-application process as provided by the amendment bill. The charge bill doesn't prescribe an amount to be charged. Again, this will be provided for in regulations. However, for the purposes of the Pacific engagement visa, the minister's second reading speech for the charge bill states the charge for the pre-application process will be $25. I want to be really clear: there are good arguments for use of ballots in certain migration programs. The use of a ballot is certainly not groundbreaking or unique in the global context. Ballots are used in migration systems around the world, including in the US and in New Zealand. There are also arguments—we have heard some through the Senate inquiry process—against the use of ballots in the migration system. One argument in favour of ballots in a migration system is that it takes the patronage out of a migration system. It provides for a genuine fair go for all. It doesn't matter what your job is; it doesn't matter what your social background is; if it's a ballot everyone gets an equal opportunity. The Greens think that is a very strong argument in favour of a ballot. So the Greens are not opposed to the introduction of a ballot process into Australia's immigration system. As the minister said in his second reading speech on this bill in the other place, ballots promote equitable and fair access to Australia's temporary and permanent migration programs. I want to be clear that Australia's temporary and permanent migration programs are absolutely not equitable and fair at the moment. We still discriminate against people based on their mode of arrival in this country. If you arrive in Australia by boat to claim asylum, off you go to Nauru under the joint policy settings of the major parties in this place. That is neither equitable nor fair. It is also a flagrant breach of our obligations under the Refugee Convention. Australia's immigration system is also not equitable or affair in regard to the provisions of the Migration Act 1958 and the Migration Regulations 1994 that are exempt from the operation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. The exemption provided to the Migration Act means that the treatment of disability in most of our migrant programs does not satisfy Australia's obligations under article 5 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities regarding equality and nondiscrimination. Let's be very clear and name it for what it is: this is ableism. Australia's migration system is an ableist migration system. It discriminates against people with disabilities. I note that, if this bill succeeded in passage through this place, the people covered by this bill would also be discriminated against if they were disabled people. Let's be very clear about this. Our migration system allows for discrimination against disabled people. That is shameful and it needs to end. We should not be running an ableist migration system in this country. We should be running an equitable and fair migration system in this country, one that is compliant with article 5 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. There have been numerous calls over many years for the removal of the exemption to the Migration Act provided by the Disability Discrimination Act. These have included calls from the United Nations as recently as 2019, from a Labor-chaired Joint Standing Committee on Migration inquiry into the migration treatment of disability, and from the current Welcoming Disability campaign, which is supported by over 100 disability and human rights organisations and experts. Because of this government-sanctioned discrimination against disabled people in our migration system we are seeing many migrant families on temporary visas—many of whom have lived for many years in our community, including many who are on a pathway to permanent residency—at risk of deportation from this country simply because they have developed or incurred a disability or because a family member has a disability. They include families with disabled children, even when those disabled children were born in Australia. Let that sink in for a minute. A family can come here on a temporary visa; they can live and work in this country and pay their taxes in this country for many years, but if they have a child and that child has a disability it's: 'Thank you very much. Off you go.' That's what our current system provides for. That is the risk right now. A child born in Australia to parents on temporary visas can be expelled, and in that case of course the parents are going to go with the child. The effect is that the whole family is expelled from this country because the parents gave birth to a child with a disability or because one of their children born in Australia incurred a disability through an accident of some kind or through any other means. That is a disgrace and it is shameful. It needs to end, and it needs and now. It is blatant and it is unconscionable. I want to bring to the chamber's attention Labor's policy, which says: 'People with disability have the same rights as all Australians.' Unfortunately, they don't in our migration system, because this Labor government is ignoring its own party platform. The Greens absolutely support the Labor Party platform. What we don't support is the Labor government's policy in this area. The bill's explanatory memorandum makes it clear that to be eligible for one of the proposed Pacific engagement visas it is envisaged that a person will need to be a citizen of a participating country, meet age requirements, have a written offer of employment in Australia and meet standard public interest criteria, including criteria relating to health and character. As I said, the exemption provided to the Migration Act by the Disability Discrimination Act harks back to the bad old days when people with disabilities were regarded as burdens on society and, effectively, as second-class citizens. Many Australians believe that we have moved past those days. Unfortunately, the Migration Act exemption from the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act makes it clear that we have not totally moved past those bad old days. I won't get a chance to put all the Greens' views on this on the record during my second reading contribution, because time will get the better of me, but I will place on the record some further aspects of our position on some of the provisions of this bill during the committee stage. Again, the government, by failing to remove the ableism from our migration system, has passed up an opportunity here to make meaningful reform to our migration system. Secondly, and critically, if we really want to be a good neighbour to our South Pacific friends, stop approving new coal and gas mines. That is the single most critical, most important way we could show we're good neighbours to our region. 10:25 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria I seek leave, for the clarity of the chamber, to move the second reading amendment that I alluded to in my speech. Leave granted. Senator PATERSON 144138 I move: Omit all words after "That", substitute ", whilst welcoming moves to establish a Pacific Engagement Visa, the bills be withdrawn and the Senate: (a) notes that: (i) permanent residency and citizenship of Australia should not be decided by a lottery, (ii) Australia's immigration system should be nation-building with a key focus on the economic contribution immigrants make to our country; and (b) calls on the Government to develop a new approach to implement the Pacific Engagement Visa". 10:25 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I rise today to speak in favour of the Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023. As chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, I joined with my colleagues to inquire into these bills earlier this year, and I want to take this opportunity to thank all of the submitters and the witnesses who appeared at our inquiry. I'm proud of the work undertaken by the Albanese Labor government to deliver this new application pathway to be used for the Pacific engagement visa. The migration visa pre-application process legislation inserts a new section 46C into the Migration Act. Section 46C will provide the relevant minister with the power to conduct a ballot or pre-application process in relation to one or more visas, with a small charge on individuals who register to take part. It creates two new functions to assist the minister in managing selected visa programs where appropriate: a ballot and a charge. The creation of the pre-application process is modelled on the New Zealand Pacific access category resident visa. Through the inquiry into this legislation, we heard that this visa category was effective and welcome for both host countries and potential applicant countries. New Zealand's legislation ensures balance between the number of visas granted and government capacity and resources by requiring that potential applicants have successfully drawn a place from a pre-application process before being able to make a visa application. It means more efficient visa processing and more effective management of departmental resources. The migration visa pre-application process legislation that we are considering today in the Senate assists the department to manage the high rate of visa applications received. The intention of this legislation is to avoid long and unrealistic visa-processing queues or disappointing visa refusals where the annual cap is already met. It also means equitable and fair access to temporary and permanent migration programs, which are regularly oversubscribed. While the bill is currently coupled with a particular visa category, this does not prevent the ballot being used through regulation. There will be more information available. The visa pre-application process bill deals with these matters in a number of ways. In addition to the ballot, the amendments impose a charge on participants registering in the ballot. This sensible safeguard is intended to act as a deterrent to non-genuine entries or bulk attempts to manipulate the process. It is capped at $100 in recognition that an overly prohibitive fee would defeat the purpose of any visa categories. While the legislation will initially be used only for Pacific engagement visas, it could be used for a range of other categories. Essentially, it is designed to make sure there is equitable and efficient access where visa demand exceeds the places available. The pre-application amendment will be used for the first time on the new category of visa which is considered by this suite of amendments. The Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill creates a new pathway for up to 3,000 eligible citizens of Timor-Leste and Pacific nations, our closest neighbours. It delivers on the commitment that the Albanese Labor government made in last year's October budget to create a new Pacific engagement visa. This new visa category will strengthen the Pacific relationship here in Australia, growing people-to-people ties across our Pacific family. It is an important feature of the Albanese Labor government's commitment to lasting and meaningful engagement in our region. The PEV program will randomly select eligible citizens of participating Pacific countries who have registered to participate in a visa pre-application process. This is what is otherwise known as a ballot. People who are not selected through the ballot are then able to apply for the new PEV. The ballot charge, in the case of the PEV program, would be $25. This new category is in addition to Australia's current permanent migration program. Prior to drafting, consultation with Pacific governments, the Pacific diaspora and community organisations was undertaken through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Giving evidence on the legislation, the department emphasised the cooperation throughout the consultation and how that would carry through to the operation of the program. This is significant. We have consulted with our neighbours, and they have told us that this is something they want us to progress. Importantly, partner countries can opt in or out of the program as needs change to ensure the program delivers on shared aspirations. As chair of the inquiry into the legislation, I was encouraged by the quality of submissions and the debate that we had through the hearing held in Canberra on 13 April this year. I want to expressly thank again all of the witnesses, who took the time to share their views on the amendment bill. It was really helpful to hear various concerns about the ballot style process or the granting of PEVs. Some witnesses did raise concerns about the pre-application process—about the lack of criteria—and they put forward views about the process and asked genuine questions, which the department was able to answer. Ultimately, however, the proposal is the most appropriate, fair and effective way forward, on the balance of evidence the committee received. Evidence from Mrs Ema Vueti, of the Pacific Islands Council of Queensland, was particularly compelling when the committee considered getting the balance right. She said she welcomed the ballot system because it 'would assist in reducing the chances for brain drain in their countries'. The reason for this, she went on to explain, is that the ballot actually negates the use of a merit- or skills-based selection process for the granting of PEVs, which may risk skills and labour shortages within participating countries. This was a significant theme that came through the inquiry and the submissions: a real concern that concentrating only on skills and labour visas would create a brain drain in the Pacific, something that we have to be mindful of in the way that we progress these visa programs. The PEV will work in conjunction with other programs, such as PALM. It's important that we understand how the PALM program will work in conjunction with this new type of visa. The inquiry process was really useful in confirming that this new visa category is separate and has no bearing on places available for skilled migrants through existing programs, like PALM. I want to acknowledge the variety of views from witnesses on the interaction of the PEV and the existing PALM program. Many put forward views about finding ways in which we could prioritise existing PALM visa holders within this category. Their arguments seemed to be underpinned by a genuine appreciation of the contribution made by PALM visa holders to communities and local economies. This is a sentiment I share, being a senator based in regional Queensland, where many PALM visa holders contribute to the local economy. However, on the balance evidence, the committee found that linking the Pacific engagement visa to the PALM scheme would create heightened concerns that participating countries have about brain drain. It is really important that we get this right. As such, the committee determined that giving an advantage to current or former PALM visa holders would be contrary to the objectives of the Pacific engagement visa. Of course, PALM visa holders have the right to access the PEV scheme on the same terms as other eligible applicants. They can apply; they're not prevented from doing so. The new PEV program is part of the Albanese Labor government's efforts to build stronger relationships with Australia's Pacific neighbours. At present, Australia does not have a dedicated permanent residency pathway for nationals of Pacific island countries and Timor-Leste. This is despite Australia and its Pacific neighbours sharing many crucial diplomatic, foreign policy and national security interests. This amendment bill rectifies that. The PEV program provides opportunities for skill exchange and the growth of a healthy Pacific diaspora in Australia and supports wider mobility within the region in response to climate change pressures. It means more country-to-country ties in our region. That's incredibly important within our region, given the national security interests, the foreign policy concerns and the fact that, from a regional security point of view, we have a gap when it comes to working with our Pacific neighbours. What this leads to, in a broader policy context, is a stronger Pacific family into the future. I commend this legislation to the chamber, and I look forward to welcoming Australia's newest permanent residents very soon. 10:35 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland As Deputy Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, I acknowledge the efforts the chair made in terms of the conduct of the inquiry into this legislation. However, I was the author of a dissenting report in relation to the Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023, and I think it is a great shame that the Labor government is not prepared to consult more widely in relation to this legislation. I am someone who lived and worked in Papua New Guinea in 1999, 2000 and 2001. I'm deeply passionate about our Pacific family. In the last six weeks, I attended the Independence Day celebrations of Fiji, held by our wonderful Fijian diaspora in my home state of Queensland, and the PNG Independence Day celebrations, hosted by our PNG diaspora. I also attended a wonderful Queensland Samoan Rugby League event attended by thousands of members of our wonderful Samoan community in Queensland. I am passionate about Australia's engagement with our Pacific diaspora and our Pacific family—absolutely passionate about it. I spoke about it in my first speech in this place; I'll speak about it in my last speech in this place. That is why I find it incredibly disappointing that the Labor government has failed to reach out across the chamber to come up with a scheme that could be agreed to on a bipartisan basis. It is a great, great shame. The first point I want to address is this concept of a lottery. Now, there are members of the public sitting in the gallery here today. I wonder what they think about the concept that, for the first time in Australia's history, we are about to introduce a lottery process to determine who can or can't come to this country—a lottery process, whereby people pay an application fee to enter into the lottery, and whether or not their lot, their application, is chosen out of the process determines whether or not they can make a home in this country. Their individual characteristics; their individual skills; the contribution they could make to this country; whether or not they have any connections with this country; whether or not, at great personal disadvantage, they've worked in a remote Queensland community during the COVID crisis, being isolated from their families in, say, Vanuatu or Fiji for a number of years—even those things cannot be taken into account. Even if they've lived and worked in this country under the PALM scheme, they'll be treated exactly the same as someone with no connection with this country. How is that a fair process? Shame on you for introducing this lottery scheme for the first time in Australia's immigration history. Shame on you, Albanese government. Let me tell you what the people in these diasporas in my home state are saying about this scheme. This is what the Fijian Community Association of Queensland says about this scheme: We also find the basic tenant of the lottery to be one that shows a disrespect to our people. Our community will always thrive when we are given the chance to meet a standard set. A lottery removes that concept and leaves it to pure luck. They go on to say: This lack of criteria reduces the value of our community inside the migration system. We thrive and delight on merit-based visas. The Fijian community in Queensland do not want to participate in a lottery. They came here based on merit, and that's how they believe the system should proceed. This is what my friends in the Cook Islands community in Queensland said: 'The Cook Islands Council of Queensland opposes the fundamental concept of the lottery system being proposed by the bill. The lottery concept ends merit as the basis of entry into Australia on the basis of anything other than the place of residence of an individual. Fundamentally, this disregards,'—and I will speak about this—'the migration patterns of Polynesian peoples around the Pacific.' That is what the Cook Islander community said in my home state of Queensland. What did our wonderful Niuan community say in Queensland? They said, '… our people are being excluded and,'—I will talk about that in a moment—'our migration patterns are being disrespected and this committee is considering a bill to charge people for a lottery that treats people's futures as if it were a game.' Shame on you. 'We oppose this bill and the underlying visa structure constructed by the government.' What have these communities told me? They believe that application should be decided on merit. And the fact that somebody from our Pacific island diasporas who has lived and worked here under the PALM scheme, who has proven themselves as someone who can contribute to a local agricultural business, to a meatworks—to whatever it is—who has deep bonds in the community and who has undergone isolation from their family during COVID is put in the same lottery as someone else who has never lived or worked here is a disgrace. This is an awful scheme. I am surprised that members in the Greens party would support the introduction of a lottery scheme, because the other thing this bill does is allow this concept of a lottery to be applied to any visa class. So the concept of a lottery introduced in this bill does not just apply to the Pacific Engagement Visa scheme; it can be applied through regulation to any immigration scheme. If I'm sitting in this place and the Greens complain when this lottery scheme is introduced in other visa classes, I will remind them of their position on this piece of legislation. Immigration schemes are no place for lotteries. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills on which I sit has looked at the fundamental processes—flaws—in relation to lottery schemes being introduced through this bill, not just to the Pacific Engagement Visa scheme but through regulation to other visa schemes and has raised fundamental scrutiny concerns. Scrutiny concern No. 1 is this: If you are going to introduce a lottery scheme to, say, humanitarian visas, family reunion visas or any other class of visa then that should be debated in a bill. It should not be introduced through regulation. It is absolutely shameful that the government is introducing a power to potentially introduce lotteries through regulations to other visa classes. Any expansion of lotteries to other visa classes should be the subject of very close attention and detail in this chamber as a house of review. But regardless, the government has taken advice—Maybe it is their own idea; I don't know—to introduce this concept whereby they can introduce lottery schemes. Put your number in the hat and see how you go in all visa classes in our immigration system—absolutely shameful. This is what the Scrutiny Digest said, It is further noted that while the bill has been introduced in anticipation of the creation of the Pacific Engagement Visa, the bill provides for the power to undertake visa pre-application processes in relation to any visa. The committee considers that the rationale for allowing the visa pre-application process to apply to any visa has not been sufficiently explained within the bill's explanatory materials,' and it hasn't. 'The committee's concerns in relation to the inclusion of significant matters in delegated legislation are heightened given the potentially broad application of the regulation making powers introduced by the bill.' Shame on you. In response to these concerns, and this is referred to in paragraph 1.9 of my dissenting report, the Minister for Home Affairs advised: 'The migration system needs to be adaptable and responsive to economic changes.' What a piece of fluff. I wonder who wrote that. The fact of the matter is, if you want to introduce a lottery scheme in relation to any other class of visa, that should be debated in the piece of legislation in this chamber and not done through the backdoor way of regulation. It shows absolute contempt for the legislative process. It's shameful. The fact of the matter is regulations do not get the same scrutiny as legislation, and the minister should be well aware of that. In paragraph 1.10, with due respect to the minister, neither of these arguments deal with the scrutiny issues identified and prosecuted by the scrutiny committee—flexibility and responsiveness—and there's no answer to the legitimate expectation that parliament will have the opportunity to consider the implementation of a policy of substantial import. If you use flexibility and responsiveness as a measure by which we didn't have to have bills of parliament, you wouldn't have the parliament in the first place. It's a gossamer-thin argument against the response of the scrutiny committee, that these matters of substance be dealt with in legislation and not in regulations. As the scrutiny committee stated, and I'll quote again from the scrutiny committee's report: the committee does not consider the need for flexibility and the need for responsiveness to be an appropriate reason to include significant matters in delegated legislation in this context. On the contrary, the committee considers it is particularly important for new legislative schemes to be included within primary legislation to ensure adequate oversight and scrutiny over the proposed scheme. While the Parliament retains the ability to disallow instruments, a legislative instrument, made by the executive, is not subject to the full range of parliamentary scrutiny inherent in bringing proposed changes in the form of an amending bill and may considerably limit the ability of the Parliament to exercise appropriate oversight over the new visa pre-application process. And that is exactly what this bill seeks to do. In this backdoor way, you've opened up an avenue to expand the use of lotteries in other visa classes, and we, as a chamber, as a house of review, will simply not have the same capacity to scrutinise the application of a lottery in those other contexts. Shame on the government for doing that. The last point I would note is: we are treating all of our Pacific family equally. The Cook Islanders, the Niueans and others who have rights to enter into New Zealand are not treated the same way as others under this scheme. They recognise that. They've raised it with me. They know it's unfair. And you can expect they will continue to raise it with government members because they consider they should be treated exactly the same as other members of the family Pacific. The point that they have rights to enter into New Zealand is irrelevant, because this bill is meant to deal with engagement between Australia and our Pacific neighbours—not New Zealand, but Australia. So that's the third point that's a real, fundamental issue with this piece of legislation. Australians listening to this debate should realise that for the first time in Australia's history the government is introducing a bill under which a lottery will determine who has the right to come to this country—a lottery, chance! That's what this government is doing for the first time in Australia's history. So, instead of what a particular individual and their family can contribute being assessed, including what contribution they potentially made through the PALM scheme during that terrible time of COVID, all of that is put to one side and it just becomes a lottery. It becomes bare chance. The second point is: this piece of legislation is introducing a backdoor method by which a lottery scheme could be expanded beyond the Pacific engagement visa to things like humanitarian visas, family reunion uses and other visas by regulation and not through appropriate debate in this place, as we're conducting now. This is a red-letter day for Australia's migration policy. For the first time in Australia's history, the government is introducing a bill, introducing a lottery, in relation to our immigration system. It is shameful. I'm absolutely passionate about our engagement with our Pacific family. I'm absolutely passionate. I have dear friends from all of our Pacific diasporas. What they've told me is that they don't want a lottery. They want to be treated equally on the basis of their merits, and that sounds like a pretty good system and principle to me. 10:50 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I thank the preceding senators for their contributions so far, and I join with Senator Scarr in considering this legislation. I, too, have been reflecting upon comments that have been made to me by Pacific island nations representatives as they have come to Canberra over the last couple of years. I've had the great pleasure of taking the opportunity to speak to many delegations about the issues that matter most to them and what they want to see Australia doing. I particularly want to reflect on that in the context of this bill being framed as necessary, important and responsive to Australia's need to engage more thoroughly with our region. When I reflect on those conversations, what is absolutely undeniable—you just cannot get away from it—is the reality that Pacific island nations leaders have come again and again to Australia with a very clear message: please stop burning coal, oil and gas, because our homes and our sacred sites—so intimately linked to our sense of individual and national identity—are literally going below the surface of the water, driven by climate change. They have come to Canberra over and over again, telling their stories and giving their time and energy. They've often done so alongside Australians who have brought to this place the ashes which are all that remain of their homes, burnt to the ground by climate driven firestorms. Yet the government putting this legislation forward and the opposition making its contribution to this debate are on a unity ticket when it comes to opening up new coal, oil and gas. In my own state of Western Australia, the federal government is teaming up with the state Labor government to support the Scarborough gas hub. This is a project which, on its own, would obliterate all of the efforts being made not only by Australia but by so many nations around the world to tackle the climate crisis—wiping those efforts out in one fell swoop—and yet the response of the federal and state governments is not to take heed of the science and not to focus on the needs of Pacific island neighbours, or the needs of Australian community members, suffering right now on the front lines of the climate crisis. The response of the major parties is to demonise members of the Western Australian community who take non-violent direct action to bring public attention to the reality of the impact of what is being done on the Burrup. While I join with Senator Scarr in centring this debate upon the needs of Pacific island neighbours, and while I deeply acknowledge that more needs to be done to strengthen the relationship between Australia and our Pacific island neighbours, I would go on to observe that, if we want to engage in that work with any semblance of integrity or authenticity, the very least we could do is to stop pouring fuel on the fire of the climate crisis, to stop bailing water into their boats as they are trying to survive. I would also turn to the material of this legislation. As my colleague Senator McKim has observed, Australia's migration laws are deeply ableist in nature. That has to be named and called out as we dealing with this migration bill. Our migration laws are ableist. They actively discriminate against disabled people, in violation of Australia's obligations under international law and in violation of any basic sense of human compassion and a commitment to a shared human dignity. We need to change these rules and recognise the positive contribution that disabled people make to our society. The current rules, to get into the specifics, are exempt from the Disability Discrimination Act. I do wonder whether the person or government that put forward that particular amendment had a particularly bad day that led them to believe, as they wrote that piece of legislation, 'I am exempting a piece of Australian law from the Disability Discrimination Act. That's okay. That's something a government should do.' And yet I am immediately disabused of that idea because of the fact that both sides of politics have upheld this discriminatory exemption for decades and still defend it to this day. To this day they still waste opportunities to rectify it. The impact of this, what this practically leads to, is the unjust deportation of disabled children born in Australia, denying them opportunities, and denying the opportunity of disabled people to migrate to Australia. This is wrong. This is deeply wrong. Anybody that can still reach within themselves that basic compassion and sense of humanity will feel and know that it is wrong. The Greens are committed to amending the Disability Discrimination Act removing the migration exemption and putting an end to this blatant discrimination. By doing so, Australia will further fulfil its obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I am proud to co-sponsor amendments to achieve this very goal to this legislation alongside my colleague Senator McKim, who in the course of our deliberation on this legislation and our collective work together has demonstrated the true nature of allyship in the disability space. I thank him and his team for that. Allyship becomes material, allyship becomes meaningful, when it is put into action. That is what Senator McKim and his team have demonstrated during this legislative consideration period. The amendments we will move together will go some way to reforming our immigration system. We will move to ensure that families will not be deported if they have a disabled child once they have come to Australia. The amendment we will put forward during the course of the debate would end the ability of the Australian government to deport Australian children born in Australia when their families are here on temporary visas. It's such a basic request. Can you imagine what it feels like to have gone through all of the steps, often paid all of the money, and all the bureaucracy of getting a temporary protection visa? And then the joy of knowing you are going to bring a new life into the world and expand your family. Often the fear and uncertainty when you find out the child you are bringing into the world might be a disabled child, because you are so often told by the medical system that that is something to be afraid of, something to be ashamed of. Imagine going through all that, and then you find out that just because your kid's autistic or has a learning difference, because they have an intellectual disability, your child will be deported by the Australian government. Can you imagine how that feels? For years we have seen reported in the news the high number of high-profile cases of families who have had to appeal to stay in Australia. Some families have been a part of our communities for decades. The law discriminates against many, including those with cerebral palsy, Down syndrome and autism and young people who are non-verbal. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 241710 Pursuant to order, debate is interrupted. Senator Urquhart 231199 I seek leave for the current debate to continue for an additional 15 minutes. Leave granted. Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 As I was saying, the law discriminates against so many in the disability community, including those with cerebral palsy, Down syndrome and autism and people who are non-verbal. For many of these people, in recent years there has, after a long and gruelling battle with the system, been ultimately good news—that the processes that they have been through have ended up in them being able to stay in Australia. But nothing—no stroke of a ministerial pen finally putting an end to such an ordeal—makes up for the stress, the worry, the pain that is caused by that ordeal, a pain and stress and worry which we can lift off the shoulders of so many by passing this amendment. The fate of a family should no longer be left to the minister of the day's discretionary powers allowing them to grant or deny a visa on a case-by-case basis. There is also a need for an inquiry in this space. While our amendments go some way to address the ableism in the migration system, we know that there is much more that needs to be done. It's not lost on me today that this day is the first sitting day since the handing down of the final report and recommendations of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. They have recommended clearly, in recommendation 4.31, changing the law in relation to disability discrimination and a need for an inquiry into this space. I quote directly: a. The Australian Government should initiate a review of the operation of section 52 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), insofar as it authorises discrimination against people with disability seeking to enter Australia temporarily or permanently. The review should consider changes to the legislation and migration practices to eliminate or minimise the discrimination. b. The review should be conducted with particular reference to the rights recognised by the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities … Our amendment would allow the chamber to implement recommendation 4.31 of the commission today. Let us act with urgency in relation to this issue. Our amendment would establish a statutory review of the migration health requirements under the Disability Discrimination Act, the Migration Act, the Migration Regulations 1994 and related matters. It is imperative that this review is conducted with public consultation and that it commences before 1 July 2024. The review will be key in amending the public interest criteria. These criteria are built on a series of ableist assumptions, treating disabled people as a burden on society. In this country, we have criteria for immigration that treat disabled people as a burden. The continuing existence of these criteria is a shame on the government of the day. The criteria require children born in Australia or disabled people wanting to migrate to stay below a figure threshold based on how much the government thinks they will cost society. The current public interest criteria threshold of $51,000 over 10 years is remarkably low compared to comparable countries such as New Zealand and Canada. It is time to abolish this threshold and the discriminatory assumptions that go into it. It's practically impossible to stay below the threshold when the government assumes that disabled people will exist in publicly-funded segregated settings and makes zero effort to recognise the positive impact that disabled people make in our society. It is time for the Australian Labor government and Minister Andrew Giles to end ableism, support the existence of disabled people in our community and update the Disability Discrimination Act to ensure the disabled people born here and disabled people who want to come to Australia are able to. 11:05 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales It is a good opportunity to make a few short contributions about these important pieces of legislation, the Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023. I have to say that in my capacity as the Assistant Minister for Trade, with a responsibility to engage with Pacific states and particularly economic and trade ministers in the Pacific, I know how important these pieces of legislation and the web of other bits of legislation and government action are to Pacific island states in terms of migration—temporary and permanent. This is very important work. When you talk to the Pacific states, whether it's through formal PACER Plus meetings, formal meetings of the Pacific Islands Forum, bilateral engagements or a much less formal level, it is very clear to me that, whether it's the PALM scheme or this scheme—which has been called for for some time—these issues are very important to both Australia and the rest of the Pacific. It's important that this chamber appreciate the importance of these issues and that, given the kind of histrionics and politicisation of these issues that we saw from Mr Tehan and laterally in the debate from Senator Scarr, the chamber actually take its responsibility seriously here. It needs to: listen to what is being asked for and seriously consider the economic, social and strategic issues that are engaged; listen carefully to the experience of Pacific island countries and understand what the challenges are here and what the experience of temporary workers who come here is and the issues that they confront and that challenge them and their families; and listen to Australian businesses who want to engage these workers and these communities, who need the skills and labour that is offered by these schemes and who have identified the shortcomings that need to be rectified. We need to make sure that we listen carefully to what the economic and skills requirements of Pacific island countries themselves are—countries who want to ensure, amongst many other things, that these arrangements deliver benefits to them. The demand is very high for these kinds of arrangements. The demand is very high both from Australian employers and Australian communities, particularly from country communities, workers themselves—citizens of Pacific island states who are looking for these opportunities—and the states themselves. These are complex issues which this government has been attending to in a careful and deliberate way, and these pieces of legislation reflect that and have broad support. I understand that, in the recent Senate inquiry, broadly half of the submissions were in favour of it and half the submissions raised some issues with it. I can tell you that, if you listen to Pacific leaders, they are demanding to know why this is taking so long to make its way through the Australian parliament. The Deputy Prime Minister of Fiji Professor Prasad raised concerns about the legislation getting stuck in the Australian parliament. He said that economic ministers in the Pacific Islands Forum want this and that they believe that it will improve and deepen Pacific ties and investment. Professor Stephen Howes at the Australian National University, one of our leading experts on these issues, said: People have been calling for this kind of initiative for a long time … there will be a massive … demand for it. He went on to say that it is broadly seen as fair. No piece of legislation is immune from criticism. This is the place for it. This is the place for amendments. I heard Senator Steele-John's contribution before. This is the place for amendments to be considered. But what on earth is what passes for an opposition doing if the contribution that we just heard from Senator Scarr is going to be the character of their response? He said it was a red-letter day, in a sort of orgy of Trumpian opposition to anything that is put forward by this government. It is a wall of negativity, whether it goes to this issue or any other issue. It is opposition at all costs, without thinking through, of course, their responsibilities in the national interest. To aspire to national leadership, you actually have to act in the national interest. Saying things like, 'This is an awful scheme,' is a disgrace. It's complete histrionics. It's not the kind of behaviour that this side engaged in when confronted with these kinds of issues, where we saw that bipartisanship in foreign policy is an important national asset. What you see from what passes for an opposition these days is complete hyperpartisanship on any question. They try to drag down these kinds of important initiatives, which should not be controversial. These initiatives should be advocated for by the whole parliament, but the opposition try to drag them down. What that does is damage the Australian national interest. The opposition have got no interest in their responsibilities. They've got no interest in the importance of taking a considered approach, particularly when it comes to the interests of the region in which we live. It is an utterly cavalier approach to these issues. Of course, that is consistent with the approach that they took in government, where it was all slogans and no substance. The slogan was 'the Pacific Step-up' and the rhetoric was 'the Pacific Step-up', but, in fact, there was no follow-through. We have seen what that has delivered in the Australian national interest. The truth about this scheme is that it will support the introduction of a new Pacific engagement visa. It will allow up to 3,000 nationals of Pacific island countries and Timor-Leste to migrate to Australia as permanent residents each year. It sits alongside a series of other initiatives that the government has implemented to make sure, for example, that people have the opportunity to bring family members with them and that there is proper oversight. It will build and strengthen Pacific diaspora communities, which already make important contributions to communities around Australia. It will provide benefits to Australian employers. You wouldn't guess that any of that was the case from the character of the contributions of those opposite. It will provide workers with the opportunity to work in Australia, to learn new skills and to send remittances home to their families and communities. They are shared benefits that are in the interests of each of the Pacific states and in the interests of a shared approach to economic development, skills development and industrial capability development right across the region—a region that faces longstanding challenges, economic underdevelopment, geographic isolation, environmental pressures— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 241710 Thank you, Senator Ayres. Pursuant to order, debate is interrupted. Senator Urquhart 231199 I seek leave for the current debate to continue for an additional 15 minutes. Leave granted. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator AYRES 16913 It is important that the foreshadowed debate happens in a way that is as collaborative as can be. Putting aside the groans of some—actually, if we're going to approach these issues of substance in a substantial way, it is the right approach. Things have got tougher in some of these Pacific states in the aftermath of the COVID pandemic. Senator Steele-John pointed out the impact of climate change and associated extreme weather events, and there are the security challenges posited by intensified geostrategic competition in the region and what that means for Pacific states, and intensified transnational crime activity and illegal fishing activity, which is done so much to deplete Pacific island fish stocks and damage food security. All these are challenges we share with the region. That means our migration settings are an important part of statecraft in terms of the way in which we approach a shared approach to these issues. We have strengths in terms of our relationship with the Pacific. We have shared values. We have deep historic connections and deep family connections. We have Pacific communities and Timor-Leste communities all around Australia, particularly in our large capital cities, and we have cultural, sporting and religious links with each of the countries and communities of the Pacific. But it is not enough to rest on our historical strengths. The Albanese government is bringing to the table an ambition for a shared approach to the development of questions that confront the region, to the investment and trade questions that confront the region, to the people-to-people relations that can strengthen the regions capacity and to the migration questions we need to get right—and, as a corollary of all that, a shared approach to issues like the impact of climate change, emissions reduction and related issues, and, of course, a shared approach to Pacific security and to developing resilience in the region. All these things are bound up tightly together. It is not an environment where glib slogans will cut it. It is not an environment where resting on the associations of the past will cut it. And it certainly isn't the environment for hyper-partisan politics in this area—which is all those opposite appear to be capable of, whether it's in foreign policy or any other area of politics. We have a comprehensive agenda. We've stepped up Australian defence cooperation with the Pacific. The ADF is providing new training opportunities for members of the Pacific defence and security forces. We've doubled funding for aerial surveillance of Pacific countries' exclusive economic zones under the Pacific Maritime Security Program. That will help tackle illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing which costs Pacific countries hundreds of millions of dollars every year. It will also help tackle the security challenges that are posed by the illicit activities of transnational criminal networks. We're taking the challenge of climate change in the Pacific seriously and establishing a new Pacific climate infrastructure financing partnership to support climate adaptation and resilience projects; amplifying Pacific voices in international climate change negotiations and fora, including supporting the Vanuatu government's request to the International Court of Justice for an advisory decision on climate change; and bidding to co-host the UN climate change conference within the Pacific to shine a global spotlight on the impact of climate change on our region. This piece of legislation fits comfortably and firmly within the government's broader suite of policy options and initiatives for the Pacific in partnership with the Pacific. The Senate ought to support this piece of legislation thoroughly and give confidence more broadly and get this bit of work done. 11:21 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023. These bills amend the Migration Act in a way that would enable the minister to implement a visa pre-application process for the random selection of eligible people who would then be permitted to apply for a relevant visa. The functionality of that ballot system would be similar to the framework for the allocation of green cards in the US, and it replicates how New Zealand allocates a similar Pacific island visa. The accompanying bill would provide for the imposition of a charge, on the registration of a participant, with the actual charge to be set out in future regulations. The purpose here is to provide pathways, but the only undertaking that the government has actually given regarding the use of the ballot system is to allocate up to 3,000 Pacific engagement visas, or PEVs, per year to Pacific islanders and East Timorese across participating countries. Those selected in the ballot would then be able to apply for permanent residence in Australia. Those 3,000 places would be in addition to the current migration program. We've got three main concerns with this bill, and we have relevant amendments that will seek to address those concerns. The first concern is that, as it is drafted, the amendment bill could be used to allocate humanitarian visas. Clearly, that is a matter of great concern. The potential use of the ballot system, where it pertains to humanitarian visas, has rightfully been condemned by the UNHCR. The Greens recommended quarantining it from the provisions of the amendment bill in our minority report from the Senate inquiry into those bills. That's our first point in relation to these bills. It's absolutely crucial that this ballot system does not apply to humanitarian visas. That would be an abrogation of all of our international obligations, and it's why we'll be moving an amendment to make sure that those humanitarian visas are quarantined from the application of this new proposed ballot system. The bill does not technically rule it out, which is why it's important that we seek to clarify that. Our other two concerns with this bill relate to the fact that we're ignoring the drivers of much of this migration by continuing to underperform when it comes to climate action. This government has ticked off on five coal and gas proposals since it assumed office, even though our Pacific neighbours are begging us in every possible forum to stop approving new coal, oil and gas. We already know that the food producing areas of the Torres Strait and of our Pacific island neighbours are facing saltwater incursion in a way that directly threatens their food security. We know that already the sea level rises and worsening extreme weather events are threatening the very existence of some of those low-lying nations in our Pacific region. Whilst this government is proposing a ballot for 3,000 permanent residents, it's continuing to tick off on new coal and gas that is directly threatening the homes, the safety and the livelihoods of our Pacific island neighbours. It is like a bait and switch. It's not good enough. This is exactly why we have called for there to be no new coal, oil and gas. It's not just for the safety of our Pacific neighbours and their ongoing ability to live and provide food for themselves but also for our own safety. My home state of Queensland has bushfires burning now, in October. Last year the fires began in September. We are seeing worse climate impacts, and they are happening now. They are affecting our biodiversity, they are affecting our human settlements and they are affecting our very way of life. This government, which promised to be so different from the last, continues to approve new coal, oil and gas. Now they have the audacity to say to the Pacific—not that we're going to listen to them on the climate and stop approving new coal and gas—that we're going to have a ballot for permanent residency. I'm afraid you can't ignore the elephant in the room, which is your continued approval of coal and gas projects. Of course we look at the donations made by the fossil fuel industry, which are made indiscriminately to both the major parties in this place. We look at the lobbyist jobs that the gas industry, the coal industry and the oil industry offer to politicians when they leave this place. All sorts of financial and personal incentives are offered. Yet we see the climate scientists and the reality of what's happening with the impacts of the climate crisis on nature, our homes, our communities and our emotional and physical wellbeing. It is long past time we stopped approving new coal, oil and gas. It's a little bit rich that, in the context of the pleas from the Pacific island nations that we stop approving new coal and gas, the response of the government is this legislation. The third issue that we have with this legislation is that it furthers discriminates against people with a disability. This is actually horrific. I had to read that twice, to be honest. It beggars belief that the exemptions provided in the Migration Act mean that most of our migration programs do not satisfy Australia's equal protection obligations under article 5 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities regarding equality and nondiscrimination. To put that another way: this law says it's okay in our migration programs to discriminate against people with a disability. I'm sorry—what? Why is it okay to discriminate on the basis of disability in this law when we say in our other domestic laws, as we should, that it's not acceptable to discriminate on the basis of disability? I might add that this is not the first time this issue has been raised. In 2019 the Labor chaired Joint Standing Committee on Migration also found that that was an unacceptable form of discrimination. I believe even the Labor Party in its party policy calls out this inequitable and unethical discrimination against people with a disability. We have bills where we could fix this, which I hope is an anomaly, but looks more and more like a deliberate decision to discriminate against people with disabilities. We are yet to see a proposed change to rule out that permissible discrimination. That is not beyond fixing, and it certainly should be fixed. The exemption that is provided in the Migration Act and the regulations from the Disability Discrimination Act harks back to the old days when people with a disability were considered burdens on society and second-class citizens to be segregated, warehoused and institutionalised away from families and communities. When most people living in Australia are rightfully protected by our disability discrimination laws, migrants in Australia or people wishing to migrate can be told to leave or denied entry if they or their child is disabled and deemed by the government to be a burden on the taxpayer. This is regardless of and pays no heed to what the disabled person or their family member could or does actually contribute to this nation. The PRESIDENT 112096 Pursuant to order, the debate is interrupted. Senator Waters, you will be in continuation when it continues. COMMITTEES 14 COMMITTEES Community Affairs References Committee 14 Meeting 14 11:30 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania by leave—I move: That the Community Affairs References Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today, from 1 pm. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 14 MOTIONS Israel 14 11:31 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I move the motion circulated in my name in relation to Hamas attacks on Israel: That the Senate— (a) unequivocally condemns the attacks on Israel by Hamas, which are the heinous acts of terrorists, and have encompassed the targeting and murder of civilians, including women and children, the taking of hostages, and indiscriminate rocket fire; (b) stands with Israel and recognises its inherent right to defend itself; (c) condemns antisemitism and recognises that generations of Jewish people have been subjected to this hateful prejudice; (d) calls for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages; (e) recognises that Hamas does not represent the Palestinian people, nor their legitimate needs and aspirations; (f) acknowledges the devastating loss of Israeli and Palestinian life and that innocent civilians on all sides are suffering as a result of the attacks by Hamas and the subsequent conflict; (g) supports justice and freedom for Israelis and Palestinians alike; (h) supports international efforts to establish and maintain humanitarian access into Gaza, including safe passage for civilians; (i) reiterates Australia's consistent position in all contexts is to call for the protection of civilian lives and the observance of international law; (j) supports Australia's engagement with countries in the Middle East and beyond, at all levels, in support of the protection of civilians, and the containment of the conflict; (k) supports the Government's ongoing efforts to provide consular assistance to affected Australians and to facilitate the departure of those who want to leave the region; (l) acknowledges what has unfolded is deeply distressing for many in the Australian community, close to the heart of many, and it is important that we maintain respect for each other here at home as people express their views; (m) condemns all forms of hate speech and violent extremist activity, including Antisemitism and Islamophobia; (n) recognizes an attack on any religion is an attack on all religions and that we all share a responsibility to unite, condemn and defeat such an attack on our common values and way of life; (o) notes that undermining social cohesion and unity by stoking fear and division risks Australia's domestic security; and (p) affirms in the strongest possible terms that hateful prejudice has no place in Australia. Unless senators wish me to, I don't propose to read out the motion. I acknowledge and thank Senator Birmingham and the opposition for their engagement on the content of this. The Senate must condemn these acts of evil perpetrated by a hateful group bent on the destruction of the state of Israel and the eradication of Jews. This was an attack on Israel and on the Jewish people, but it is also an attack on our collective humanity. We unequivocally condemn these attacks. We call for the immediate release of hostages. Australia stands with Israel and always will, just as we always remember the thousands of years of persecution and atrocities perpetrated against the Jewish people—six million European Jews killed in the Holocaust—that finally resolved the international community to establish the state of Israel. And, as more Jews were killed in this attack than on any single day since the Holocaust, we understand how this brings back that trauma. The attack by Hamas was shocking in its brutality and its scale: 1,400 civilians murdered, 3½ thousand injured and as many as 150 taken from Israel and held hostage in Gaza; men, women and children, from babies to the infirm and elderly, Holocaust survivors; many killed in their homes, protecting their loved ones; hundreds gunned down at a music festival; citizens from more than 30 nations, an Australian grandmother, Galit Carbone, among their number. Place names that days ago were probably known only to a few are now seared in our memory: Kibbutz Be'eri, Kibbutz Kfar Aza—small, self-sustaining communities that have now experienced unimaginable horror. And I want to again express my deepest sympathies to those impacted by these heinous acts. We are shocked, we are horrified, we grieve with you and we affirm our solidarity with you. We do need to be clear about what has taken place here. Hamas has carried out a terrorist attack against Israel and its people. There is no justification for this attack, and, in the face of this attack, as ever, Israel has a right to defend itself, to re-establish its security, to prevent such attacks from taking place again. We must also be clear: Hamas does not seek peace, nor does Hamas represent or speak for the Palestinian people and their legitimate needs and aspirations. We need to be clear in differentiating Hamas from the Palestinian people, just as we would distinguish between the Taliban and Afghans. Hamas is a terrorist group that rules Gaza with no regard for the safety and security of the Palestinian people who live there. The Albanese government's guiding principle has always been the pursuit of progress towards a just and enduring two-state solution, where Israelis and Palestinians can live within secure borders. One of the many tragic consequences of Hamas's abhorrent attack is that it has pushed that two-state solution further out of reach. This also makes this an unconscionable crime perpetrated by Hamas against the Palestinian people. Hamas's actions have precipitated a devastating situation in Israel and in Gaza, and civilians on all sides are suffering. Regardless of religion or ethnicity, we mourn each innocent life lost. Australia's principle position, in all contexts, is to call for the protection of civilian lives and for the observance of international humanitarian law. These are principles we cherish. They protect us all, which is why we have seen widespread calls across the international community for the protection of civilians, and these are the principles I have consistently advocated in my discussions with regional and international partners, including Egypt, Israel, Jordan, the UAE, the Palestinian Authority and the United States. We join with the calls of President Biden and other partners for Israel to operate by the rules of law. These calls are about protecting innocent life, but they are also about our shared interests. They are about containing this conflict, and containing this conflict matters. If conflict were to spill over across the region, risks to Israel's security would be compounded, as they would for Israeli and Palestinian civilians and civilian populations throughout the region. Averting regional escalation matters to Israel, it matters to the people of the region and it matters to the world. This will be one of Israel's many considerations as it determines how it pursues its legitimate military objectives, and we recognise this will be challenging. Hamas has burrowed itself into Gaza's civilian population. It uses the Palestinian people and the hostages it has taken as human shields and seeks to prevent the departure of foreign nationals—inhumane tactics that clarify the true nature of the group, but, in turn, heighten the imperative for all possible measures to be taken to protect civilians in Gaza. The humanitarian situation in Gaza is deteriorating rapidly. In response, Australia is providing an initial $10 million in humanitarian assistance through trusted partners for civilians affected by the conflict in Gaza. This includes $3 million to the International Committee of the Red Cross to fund urgent needs, like restoring essential services and providing medical support to victims of the conflict, and $7 million through UNICEF and UNOPS to deliver critical support, including emergency water, nutrition, sanitation and hygiene services as well as child protection. To ensure essential humanitarian relief can reach civilians affected by the conflict in Gaza, Australia calls for safe and unimpeded humanitarian access to Gaza and the rapid establishment of a humanitarian corridor. We support the work of the United States, Egypt and others towards this goal. We will continue to monitor and assess the humanitarian situation, and we stand ready to provide further support. From the outset of this crisis, the Australian government has been supporting Australians in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. Last Monday I asked my Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to assess all options for Australians wanting to leave. We secured commercial options for assisted departures and readied the ADF to assist should commercial options no longer be viable. The first of those flights, operated by Qantas, took 238 passengers from Tel Aviv to London free of charge. Overnight, we have provided a further three flights, two operated by the Australian Defence Force and one government charter. In many cases we have also been able to coordinate with countries who are facing similar circumstances. For example, Fiji, which happened to have a plane in Israel, provided 14 seats for Australians wanting to leave. I want to thank the officers of my department, members of the Australian Defence Force and all government officials who helped in this effort, including those at overseas posts and the staff at Services Australia. I acknowledge the work of all departments and agencies through what has been a whole-of-government response. I should note we have secured flights for onward travel to Australia from both London and Dubai, and information about those onward flights will be provided directly to passengers. Further details will be released soon. Subject to factors, including the security environment, the Australian government is planning an additional charter flight to depart from Tel Aviv to Dubai today for Australians wanting to leave. Yesterday, we saw spare seats, despite them being fully allocated. We can't know how the security situation will unfold. I've been saying for several days people who wish to leave should take the first available option. People should consider that the flight I have referenced may be our last opportunity to conduct an assisted departure flight for the foreseeable future. As of this morning, more than 1,200 Australians previously registered have left Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including more than 400 Australians and their families on four Australian government assisted departure flights. DFAT continues to assist more than a thousand registered Australians, including 39 consular cases. I do emphasise that not all of those registered wish to leave. In many cases, it is a matter of maintaining contact and the flow of information at what is obviously an anxious time. This situation is highly challenging and rapidly changing, and the government is considering whether further assisted departure flights are required. Australians in the affected areas who wish to leave and need assistance with departure should register via DFAT's crisis portal or by calling the 24-hour consular emergency centre on +61262613305 from overseas or 1300555135 from within Australia. We will continue to provide updates to registered Australians. In closing, I want to reflect on the impact of this conflict here in Australia. Australians are rightly distressed by this situation, and that distress is felt most acutely in our Jewish and Palestinian communities. This is a long, complex and disputed history, deeply felt, closely to the heart of many. The lived experiences and understandings of our different Australian communities are distinct. When individuals engage in the sort of rhetoric that we have seen, regrettably, in recent days—vile antisemitism and the Islamophobia which is its bedfellow—it undermines some of our greatest strengths: our diversity, our tolerance, our values. This week, President Biden reminded us that history teaches us that hate towards one group, left unanswered, leaves open the door for more hate for more groups, so I ask all of us: when we speak, let us speak with respect; when we speak, let us speak with understanding for difference. We should reject all in this country who seek to create division. We should all be striving for unity. We reject hate and condemn prejudice and discrimination in all its forms. We reject the terror perpetrated by Hamas and separate their heinous acts from the legitimate needs and aspirations of the Palestinian people. We stand firmly against antisemitism. We stand against Islamophobia. We stand against prejudice. We stand against hate speech in all its forms and we call it out when and where we see it. We must maintain mutual respect for each other here at home, and this chamber has a role in that. We must preserve our uniquely harmonious multicultural character. It is why people come to this country and it is who we are as a country. 11:42 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia The attacks by Hamas against Israel just over a week ago were amongst the worst examples of terrorism in the modern age. That word, 'terrorism', speaks of horror. It speaks of violence. It speaks of instilling fear in a people to achieve a political or ideological aim. Until Saturday a week ago most of us could not have imagined just how abhorrent the imposition of terror could be on innocent people—women, the elderly, mothers and grandmothers, children and, the most innocent of all, babies. As rockets rained down on populations in Israel's south, the terror that is Hamas unleashed the most inhumane attacks on innocent civilians. It was bloody and brutal murder, of more than 1,300 people, carried out with animalistic savagery that has no place in our world. No reasonable person could not be affected by the horror we saw unfolding in Israel, beginning with the wholesale slaughter of young people who had simply gathered in a field to enjoy music and dance. Could the horror be worse? Sadly, what followed were unimaginable reports of rape, torture, beheading and kidnapping. Still, hostages are being held by Hamas. They should be released unconditionally. Many of the reports are haunting, for none more than those with family and loved ones in Israel. What they are enduring is beyond our comprehension, especially for those still waiting for confirmation of whether their worst fears for loved ones become a grim reality. We can only try to imagine and empathise for the pain felt by those directly affected. That pain reverberated around Australia even before we knew that an Australian grandmother was among those murdered. To the family, friends and loved ones, both here in Australia and in Israel, of Galit Carbone, who sadly became the first Australian to be confirmed to have been killed in Hamas' attack, the horror became deeply personal. Words are inadequate but we offer our sympathies to Ms Carbone's family and loved ones. But whether or not this horror directly affected a relative, friend or acquaintance, it is still deeply personal for Australia's Jewish community. It is personal because they can relate. In those who have died, they can see themselves, their loved ones or, perhaps most painfully of all, their forebears. In the history of humanity, many people have suffered persecution at the hands of others. However, the Jewish story of persecution stands out in its horror, its scale and its still relative proximity. The Holocaust was less than 100 years ago and took six million lives. The horrors of the Holocaust continue to be deeply felt by the generations who have followed. The attacks of Saturday a week ago are deeply personal for Jewish people because they go to their personal identity. As they see it and feel it, the victims could just as easily has been them or their loved ones just because they are Jews. The brutal unprovoked murder of Ms Carbone and so many others seeks to deny not only the right of Israel to exist or of Jewish people to a homeland but threatens the very right of Jews to live. That there remain those who would pursued genocide as their objective should send a chill down the collective spine of decent societies around the world. Australia, along with all like-minded nations, must support efforts by Israel to defend itself and its people against this and the risk of future atrocities. The coalition believes that through this motion the Australian parliament is telling the world, especially our Jewish friends here in Australia, that we stand with you and that we will support you in your moment of greatest need since the darkest days of World War II. Hamas's brutal attack has led to the largest killing of Jews in a single day since the Holocaust. What is more difficult to comprehend is that such targeted slaughter—that is what it was, slaughter—should lead to scenes of jubilation amongst those who support the twisted ideologies of Hamas. What great shame can befall a nation than to be the focus of such scenes of jubilation. The gross antisemitic scenes on the steps of the Sydney Opera House stain our nation in shame. These abhorrent actions have instilled fear in Australia's strong and proud Jewish community deepen that shame. Last week I was in Brussels and Berlin, and to be asked unprompted by members of other parliaments in nations far away about those scenes on the steps of the Sydney Opera House was not only embarrassing but disturbing. Is this Australia in 2023? I would hope not. While we defend the right to protest, there should be no effort spared to prosecute any who crossed the line through words or deeds to incite violence or further terrorism. Such sentiments have no place in Australia. The racist bigots who attracted this international attention do not reflect what I know the overwhelming majority of fair-minded, decent Australians stand for. Australia's Jewish community has made an enormous contribution to Australia's multicultural, modern, tolerant, peaceful, respectful society. It is a community that is welcome here, a community that belongs here, a community of Australians, of Jewish Australians. If the events in Israel and the reverberations we saw on the steps of the Opera House make us shudder, as they should, then when David Adler, the President of the Australian Jewish Association, says he has had reports of mobs driving around Sydney saying they are 'looking for Jews', then we need to act. We need to act when this is not an isolated event but the manifestation of what seems to be a dangerous creeping wave of antisemitism. When 21-year-old Benji van der Plaat, who spoke in The Age last Wednesday, chillingly summed up the fear of many of his faith when he said, 'I am Jewish but I am currently scared to show it,' then we need to act. When businessman Oliver Friedman is told to stay away from his workplace in the heart of Sydney in Martin Place unless he can make himself look 'less Jewish', we need to act. When parents are afraid to take their children to schools which reflect their faith, when those very schools have for so many years had to employ security and now had to increase that security, then we need to act. These actions require unequivocal condemnation. They require action across our security agencies at federal and state levels to ensure our Jewish community feel and are safe in their homes, their schools, their workplaces and their daily lives. We need longer term action too. Whilst in Germany, in light of the horror unfolding in Israel, I changed my program to visit the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe. Here, as elsewhere across Germany, I was struck by the honest acknowledgement of wrongdoing and how comprehensively those lessons of intolerance and antisemitism have been learnt. No Australian child, regardless of their school, should have anything less than a comprehensive understanding of these dark moments in history and why it is so important to stand against the ideologies, beliefs and actions that enabled them. The Liberal and National parties once again, in concert with virtually all Australians, stand against all forms of antisemitism. We were proud, in government, to lead Australia's adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of 'antisemitism'. To our Jewish friends who are hurting or are fearful, I say this: you are a much loved and intrinsic part of our Australian family. What you and your loved ones are enduring, both here and in Israel, is what this parliament today must denounce in the strongest possible terms—endorsed, I hope, by all parties and individuals. Australia and Israel are democracies. We argue for rights and the rule of law. Australia was the first country to vote in favour of the UN partition plan in 1947, and we became one of the first countries to formally recognise the state of Israel in 1949. The strong bonds between our nations continue to this day and underpin our recognition of Israel's absolute right to defend itself, its right to exist and its right to protect its citizens from terrorism. The coalition is unequivocal in the belief that, in exercising its right to self-defence, Israel has the right to remove the threat that Hamas presents to the Israeli people. Hamas, which stands only for bloodshed and terror, is not only a threat to Israel but presents a permanent blockage to any pathway they could lead Israelis and Palestinians towards a more peaceful future. The removal of Hamas from any position of power or influence is a prerequisite not just for security but for any hope of long-term peace. The former coalition government officially recognised Hamas as a terrorist organisation, as have many other nations. We have all known of its evil motivations for too long. There is a lesson when we look at global events like Putin's invasion of Ukraine last year or Hamas's attack on Israel this year. The lesson is that those who act in bad faith don't get better with time. Many will rightly ask whether more could or should have been done when Putin invaded Crimea in 2014 or, in the same year, blasted hundreds of innocent lives out of the air, including 27 Australians. Equally, they may ask what more could or should have been done when Hamas took power in Gaza in 2007 or kidnapped and murdered teenagers in 2014, or any of the countless other atrocities it has undertaken over the years. We cannot always bend the arc of history towards a better outcome, but we should be ever vigilant about trying to do so. Right now, that should cause the world to cast its eyes towards Iran. While most of the Arab world has been normalising relations with Israel, Iran is known to have been arming Hamas. While much of the Arab world has been opening up to the world, Iran has been doubling down on the murder and oppression of its own people, especially women and girls. Iran spreads evil ideology. It funds or empowers proxies like Hamas or Hezbollah, the latter having seized upon Hamas's violent acts to join in its own attacks on Israel. Let us not be asking, in five or 10 years time, what more could've been done to prevent Iran unleashing whatever atrocity its regime might commit, including the threat of a nuclear one. Instead, let us take every principled step we can right now to prevent that from happening, including calling Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps what it is: a terrorist organisation. Right now Australia, along with all like-minded nations, should support efforts by Israel to defend itself and its people against the risk of future atrocities. The coalition believes that Australia should be willing not to just stand with Israel but to help Israel. We're already witnessing that the battle to disarm and disempower Hamas will not be easy. The politics of this region are complex—the history even more so. There is great compassion for the Palestinian people, which, if anything, has only grown in recent years. Earlier this year, I finished reading a booked called Apeirogon. It was given to me by two fathers who are members of the Parents Circle, a peaceful group bringing together Israelis and Palestinians who have lost children in conflict. Apeirogon is a book like no other that I've ever read, intertwining history, analogy and the tragic stories of Smadar, killed by a Palestinian suicide bomber at the age of 13, with that of Abir, killed by an Israeli rubber bullet at the age of 10. The forgiveness shown by these parents, as they hope for a peaceful future, is the best of humanity. I suspect they would disagree with many of the conclusions I've drawn from recent events, but, in Hamas, their cause for peace confronts the worst of humanity. Be under no mistake: Hamas has brought Israel's response upon itself, and, in doing so, it has tragically exposed to danger the very people they falsely claim to stand for. Hamas are responsible for the current loss of Israeli, Palestinian and other innocent lives. The task being undertaken by Israel is not one that any of us would envy, especially with the moral dilemmas it presents. Nobody wants to see other innocent lives lost, least of all those of other children. They deserve care and support too, which is why the coalition supports properly targeted humanitarian assistance. However, let us not be led into false equivalences. In attack, Hamas acts with surprise and with intent to brutally kill women and children. In defence, Hamas acts with cowardice by using women and children as shields. Israel, in contrast, provides public warnings to minimise civilian losses, acting in defence to target the weapons, capabilities and perpetrators of terrorist acts. As difficult as this situation becomes, let us be unflinching and unwavering in our support for Israel removing Hamas terrorists from power. Let us hope that, in removing this mighty obstacle to progress or peace, Israel and genuine representatives of the Palestinian people may eventually find a pathway to live alongside one another in peace. To live in Australia is to live in a multicultural society that respects all traditions and heritages, asking only that they also respect one another. Both Australia and Israel ask our citizens to respect one another, to respect diversity and to respect the rights and responsibilities that come with living in a liberal democracy and market economy. We as nations, Australia and Israel, are more inclusive, compassionate and successful societies than any governed by Hamas or its supporters such as Iran. That is why, at this historical turning point of Hamas's evil acts of war against Israel, we stand with our Israeli and Jewish friends, together and resolute in defence of Israel. 11:57 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Last week the world watched in horror as Hamas began its assault upon the state of Israel and upon its citizens. The scale and brutality with which innocent civilians just trying to live out their lives were targeted for slaughter, mutilation and abduction has rightly moved so many in the Australian community to voice our compassion and solidarity with all Israelis impacted and to offer help in the midst of an immense trauma. Among the murdered were older people just living in their homes, kids enjoying a music festival and children who knew little of the history of a conflict that far predates their arrival on this planet. There is no excuse, no justification and no celebration that can be found in attacks that deliberately target and seek to traumatise civilian communities. It is not resistance. It's not a military offensive. The compassion, honesty and commitment to peace and justice, demanded of us all in this moment, call on us to call out these acts as the acts of terrorism and the blatant war crimes that they are. In the aftermath of this attack, the government of the state of Israel has implemented several policies and operations. Rather than seek to respond with targeted operations designed to bring individual perpetrators to justice in line with international law, the state of Israel has engaged and is now engaged in a ruthless campaign of collective punishment against the Palestinians of Gaza despite the fact there are one million children living in Gaza; almost 40 per cent of the population of the Gaza Strip is under the age of 15. The Israeli military is indiscriminately bombing civilians in their homes as they try to flee or seek shelter. Neighbourhoods where so many Palestinians have spent years trying to build their lives are being reduced to rubble. The state of Israel has cut off access to water, electricity, food and medicine, meaning those rescued from the rubble face hospital wards that are little more than warehouses for the dead and dying. There is no excuse and no justification, and there can be no solidarity with such actions. It is not self-defence. It is not a military operation. The very same commitment to compassion, to honesty, to peace and to justice required of us in response to the vile attacks of Hamas requires us to call out the war crimes being committed by the state of Israel right now in Gaza. The need to call out these war crimes is all the more urgent because it appears today that the state of Israel is in the final stages of forcing the removal of 1.1 million Palestinians in Gaza in an act of collective punishment and a forced population transfer that would constitute one of the most significant humanitarian disasters and contraventions of international law in the 21st century. This cannot be condoned. It must be opposed. The Greens reject and condemn all forms of violence, especially against civilians. We call again for an immediate ceasefire between all parties engaged, an immediate halt to the forced removal and transfer of Palestinians in Gaza and an immediate end to the military siege. Nothing can justify the violence we have seen in the last week. We can never forget that peace must always be the goal for both Israelis and Palestinians. To contribute to the work needed to attain this peace, the Australian government must be honest about the context and history surrounding what we are witnessing right now. Failing to do so will reinforce a cycle of violence to be repeated over and over again, with innocent civilians paying the highest price. The Australian government must be honest with the Australian community about the fact that the state of Israel has been committing the crime of apartheid against Palestinian peoples for so many years now, and about the fact that the far-right Netanyahu government has expanded and entrenched the state of Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine, creating the conditions that have seen Hamas' influence grow and a just peace so much more difficult to achieve. To achieve peace, the Australian and global community must work together to bring an end to the occupation of the Palestinian territories, to ensure Hamas unconditionally releases all hostages taken on the 7 October attack, and to ensure the planners and perpetrators of the 7 October attack are brought to justice in accordance with international law and that there are independent UN and ICC backed investigations of the war crimes being committed by the state of Israel in Gaza right now. There must be a removal of Israeli settlers and security forces from all Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, including the land and sea blockade of Gaza. We must work to ensure the equitable allocation of national resources, including water, and an end to the siege that now denies Palestinians access to water and medicine. And we must work collectively to ensure full equality before the law for every person, irrespective of ethnicity, religion, language, race, gender identity, class, disability, sexuality or other social status in Palestine and Israel. In this work, we must remain connected to the reality that thousands have died. Tens of thousands have been injured and hundreds of thousands of human beings have been displaced. These numbers increase daily. The grief of communities across the world increases daily because of the actions of Hamas and of the state of Israel, the actions they are taking against each other's civilian communities. We must respond to these horrors with compassion. We must respond with honesty. We must respond with an ironclad determination to achieve a just and lasting peace. I indicate to the Senate now on behalf of the Australian Greens that we will be moving an amendment to the government's motion before the chamber to omit paragraph (b) and substitute the paragraph 'condemn war crimes perpetrated by the state of Israel, including the bombing of Palestinian civilians, and calls for an immediate ceasefire between all parties and an end to the war on Gaza, recognising that for there to be peace there must be an end to the state of Israel's illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories'. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Are you moving that? Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Yes. 12:07 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I rise on behalf of the National Party to support this motion and in particular to agree with the remarks from the Opposition leader, Senator Birmingham; also to recommit Australia's and this Senate's unwavering support for the state of Israel in the face of pure, unadulterated evil attacks unleashed by the terrorist organisation Hamas. On 7 October 2023, Hamas launched a multipronged military operation on Israel that included rocket attacks, balaclava-clad fighters dropping from paragliders, ground assaults on civilians in their homes, on city streets and at a Jewish music festival. The terrorists burst through border fences without any warning or immediate provocation, landed on Israeli beaches and fired thousands of rockets into Israel early on Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath and a Jewish holiday. Australians and the world witnessed an unprovoked mass murder of 1,400 Israeli men, women and children: young people at a music festival rounded up and gunned down in cold blood; Israeli mothers, fathers, children brutally beheaded and butchered in their own homes; more still rounded up as hostages. More than 150 people remain captive in Gaza in a further atrocity. Many Israelis have called this attack their 9/11. More than 1,300 civilians and soldiers slaughtered—not just killed, slaughtered—in Israel. Entire family slain; babies killed their cots. We must call this premeditated attack, perhaps years in the planning, for what it is: absolute indescribable evil. And yet, incomprehensibly for the Jewish people, it was just yet another chapter in millennia of antisemitism and horrific acts of genocide. In fact 7 October 2023 marked the single worst day for loss of life by the Jewish people since the Holocaust, an event all humanity pledged would never happen again. Our commitment to supporting the State of Israel is deeply rooted in our principles of democracy, freedom and justice. We firmly believe in upholding the rule of law and the rights of sovereign nations to protect their citizens from harm. We defend Israel's right to defend itself and its duty to protect its citizens. Hamas, which seeks Israel's destruction, says it is defending Palestinians' right to freedom and self-determination. But this wasn't that. Israel has a right to protect the innocent, to eliminate the threat to its people, to prevent future harm and to uphold its sovereignty, of which Australia has always been a supporter. Australia and Israel share a unique and profound bond, rooted in a common commitment to democratic values, human rights and the rule of law. Israel is the sole genuine democracy in the Middle East and has consistently upheld democratic values and principles whilst grappling with numerous security challenges and threats. For my part, I am a Zionist. I've visited Israel several times. I steadfastly and unashamedly defend the right of Israel to defend itself from the existential threat to the only genuine democracy in the Middle East. Australia played a fundamental role in the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, in the aftermath of the Holocaust, being the first nation in the world to vote in favour of the United Nations resolution. Australia also accepted an influx of refugees after the Second World War, and those citizens and their children have made an enormous and extraordinary contribution to our nation. Most of them ended up in the capital city of my home state, in Melbourne. The close connection between Australia and Israel has continued, mostly uninterrupted, since then. Support for Israel in Australia has been bipartisan. I acknowledge today that the Labor Party has, for the most part, been entirely supportive of Israel, and its many champions have included past leaders Doc Evatt, Kim Beazley, Bob Hawke and Bill Shorten—lifelong supporters of Israel and our Jewish community here at home. But Labor has occasionally wavered in its support. Most notably, there was Gough Whitlam's cooling of relations with Israel during the Yom Kippur War in 1973. In very recent times, we've witnessed another period of ambivalence from the Australian Labor Party, as the changes in demographics of Labor electorates have meant that some Labor MPs have put principle aside in favour of their preselection and election. I was very proud to attend on Friday an Erev Shabbat in Caulfield, organised by the Jewish community in my home state, joining not just thousands of people from the Melbourne Jewish community but also supporters from right across the state of Victoria and state and federal members of parliament. I acknowledge that Senator Paterson spoke at that event, but I was moved and struck in particular by the contribution of the Australian Attorney-General, Mr Mark Dreyfus. I just want to share some of his contribution to that event as we joined together to show our united support: Many of us here this evening are the children or grandchildren of Holocaust survivors. I am the son of a Holocaust survivor. And it is unbearable to comprehend how, given all we have endured as a people over our long history, this could be happening again. Spending sleepless nights waiting desperately to hear from loved ones. So many fearing for the safety of family and friends in Israel—including those being called up to serve. There is no excuse for the atrocities of Hamas. There is no justification. This was not just an attack on the State of Israel. And it was not just an attack on the people of Israel. This was an attack on the Jewish people. He then went on to speak about the 'unbreakable spirit' of the Jewish people over time. That was the Australian Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus. I think, when we say we stand by Israel, it is very concerning that it took days—days—for the Australian Prime Minister to get out of his 'yes' T-shirt and get to a synagogue, to actually stand with our Jewish community at their time of need. There was a wholly inadequate response from the New South Wales government to the protest march at the Opera House. It beggars belief that those racist, bigoted zealots were allowed to get on with their day after that appalling behaviour. The one person that got arrested was a man who peacefully was carrying an Israeli flag whilst other protesters at the Opera House cried, 'Gas the Jews.' This is Australia in 2023. It's appalling, and we need to stand up against it. There were no NSC meetings called. All efforts were to downplay the significance of the event. Language is very important. When we finished Erev Shabbat, as we all dispersed back to our Friday evening, local community members were saying: 'Thank you for coming. I know you're not Jewish, but thank you for standing with us.' On Saturday night, while they were watching this and WhatsApping their families in Irael, there was silence from their own government, the Australian government, in their time of need. A woman pulled me aside and said, 'I felt so alone.' That is why this motion is so important. It is so important that they know the Australian parliament—not just the opposition but the government and the Australian Senate—stands with them. We've seen our Minister for Foreign Affairs use very carefully chosen but deliberate words in order to placate some sections within the Australian Labor Party. Hamas is a radical Islamist organisation. It has been a constant threat to the peace and security of Israel and the region. Its repeated rocket attacks and border infiltration—kites aimed at Israeli civilians—have had devastating consequences over many years. These attacks not only violate international law but also demonstrate Hamas's complete disregard for the lives of both Israelis and the Palestinians in Gaza whom they claim to represent. To those who have genuine concerns for Palestinians living in Gaza: do not forget that Hamas has repeatedly used its own people as human shields. This moral distinction underscores a fundamental difference between a nation that values human life and a terrorist organisation that uses it as a bargaining chip. Australia is the most successful multicultural nation in the world. We are so because there is respect and acceptance of people from all nations and all faiths. I ask those who are torn in their genuine, heartfelt sympathy for Palestinians to just imagine for one moment the same atrocity being perpetuated here on Australian soil. Would your demands for restraint and even-handedness be the same? In the face of ongoing threats from Hamas, we stand by Israel. The brutal terrorist attack is a tragedy, and one that may change the course of the nation and the entire region. In coming months it's going to be difficult. The consequences of his unprovoked attack fill us all with dread, but we also must recognise the truth of what has happened. Today is a day when we must clearly and unequivocally say to the people of Israel: we stand with our Jewish community; we reject with all our of hearts, all of our minds and all of our actions any threat to you and yours. 12:18 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria 'Never again'. They are the words that have been said since the Holocaust in the Second World War. Let me see them again: never again! Yet last weekend we saw the same atrocities happen in Israel—against Israelis, against my Jewish family and friends. Let's make no mistake about it: Hamas is synonymous with evil, the same evil that we saw perpetuated by the Nazis in the Second World War. Therefore, in my mind, there can be no doubt that Hamas is synonymous with the Nazis. This was proven at that horrible march in Sydney following the attacks, on an occasion which was meant to be remembering the lives lost in Israel, where there were people chanting, 'Gas the Jews.' My family are Jewish. Can you imagine the effect, 70-odd years since the Holocaust, of again hearing people saying, 'Gas the Jews'? We cannot stand for this. I am so heartbroken by the atrocities that we saw, and they felt so close to home for me, my family, my friends in Israel and the Jewish community—in Melbourne in particular but right across Victoria. The stories of atrocities and killing from that raid into Israel by Hamas have to be condemned. It does not sit well with me when I hear about the teenagers who were murdered at the music festival and those who were paraded through the streets with bloodied crotches, seemingly after being raped. That does not sit well with me. It does not sit well with me that grandmothers were burned. It does not sit well with me that babies were killed in their cots. The number of hostages taken, the 1,300 people murdered—none of this sits well with me. That is why I stand with Israel and with the Jewish community in Australia. That is why I believe that the Israeli people have the right to defend themselves and that Hamas must be neutralised and can never again be allowed to rule over the people of Gaza and bring terror to their lives and to Israel. We must do everything we can to save the lives of nonbelligerents, but let's face facts. Hamas did not give days of warning to the babies that were killed, the women that were raped, the grandmothers that were burned and the hostages taken—nothing like that. They did not play by the rules of war. At least we are seeing the IDF act with courage and within the rules of humanitarian law in giving people an opportunity to escape. Israel was not given this opportunity. This war will be prosecuted. It will be bloody. It will be against Hamas. It is not against the people of Islam. It's not against the Gazans. I stand also with the members of the Islamic community here in Australia, every bit as much as I do with the Jewish community in Australia. This is just a fight against evil, and I stand behind that fight. I stand behind Israel. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Pursuant to order, the debate is now adjourned. BILLS 22 BILLS Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023, Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023 22

Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023

Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023

Second Reading 22 12:25 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise to continue my contribution to the Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill and related bill. When I was last on my feet I was speaking about the fact that the bill as currently drafted entrenches discrimination against people with a disability in our migration laws. That is utterly unacceptable, requires urgent attention and I hope will be fixed as part of the passage of these amendments. There have been many calls over many years for the exemption provided in the Disability Discrimination Act to be removed. As I mentioned in my previous contribution, this included from the United Nations, as recently as 2019, and from a then-Labor-chaired joint standing committee on migration into the migration treatment of disability. I note that this has been a longstanding unacceptable form of discrimination against people with disability. Because of this government sanctioned discrimination, we're seeing many migrant families on temporary visas in our community, including many of whom who are on a pathway to permanent residency, at risk of deportation simply because they've either developed or incurred a disability or because a family member has a disability. Horrifyingly, this includes families with disabled children even when those children were born here. This is blatant and unconscionable discrimination, and it persists on our law books until otherwise changed. I note that the Labor Party policy platform, a national platform, says: People with disability have the same rights as all Australians and Labor believes that governments should help remove barriers to the full exercise of those rights to enable people with disability to participate fully in society and exercise full choice and control over their lives. That sounds great to us. I love that that's in your platform. How about we see it in the legislation so that we can remove this vestige of discrimination against people with a disability? In the bill's explanatory memorandum, it said to be eligible for one of these proposed visas that: it is envisaged that a person will need to be citizen of a participating country and meet age requirements— and, have a written offer of employment in Australia and meet standard public interest criteria, including criteria relating to health and character. It's with that last criteria that the issue emerges. This exemption, that's provided to the Migration Act and the regs by the Disability Discrimination Act, really takes us back to the bad old days when people with a disability were considered a burden on society and when the value contribution that they make to our nation was not properly recognised. I find it just mind-bending that people who live in Australia are protected from discrimination, yet, if you are a migrant or you are wishing to migrate, you can be told to leave or you can be denied entry if you or your child is disabled—you're deemed by the government to be a burden, and this is regardless of what you might be seeking to contribute to this nation. So it's desperately disappointing this amendment bill has been drafted in such a way, so far, that it doesn't seek to redress that discrimination. This precise issue was recognised by the disability royal commission. I point out that recommendation 4.31 of the recently published report by the disability royal commission calls for a review of section 52 of the Disability Discrimination Act. It's with a view to inform reforms that would eliminate or minimise discrimination in our migration system and reflect our international human rights obligations. So we had the Labor chaired Joint Standing Committee on Migration in 2010 call this out, the UN in 2019 call this out and the disability royal commission point out that this discrimination is entrenched and remains on our law books. The government has made it clear that it's not willing to enact this reform—at least not so far—which is exactly why the Greens have been in good-faith negotiations with the government to scope some modest reforms that would seek to overcome this discrimination. I certainly hope those discussions are concluded in a manner that will allow that discrimination to be removed from our law books with pieces of amending legislation. As I said at the outset, that's not the only concern we have with this legislation. We will also be seeking to amend the legislation to ensure that humanitarian visas are not subject to this proposed ballot process. That would be deeply inappropriate, as the UNHCR has already recognised. Also we desperately need climate action. If we were truly treating our Pacific neighbours with the respect that they deserve then we would stop approving new coal, oil and gas. It is flooding their food-producing lands. It is imperilling the very existence of some of those low-lying island nations. If we were genuinely treating our neighbours with respect then we would stop approving new coal, oil and gas. This legislation is entirely missing the point. We are demanding climate action. We stand alongside our Pacific neighbours to demand no new coal, oil and gas. 12:32 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Australia has had a long, rich history of migration from the Pacific. I've said before on matters of citizenship that New Zealanders are not foreigners—they're family. The same goes for our Pacific family. They are our neighbours, they are our friends and they are our people. Some of our Pacific history isn't something to be proud of—in the 19th century tens of thousands of Pacific islanders were forced or tricked to come here and work on plantations in Queensland and build railroads—but we are proud of our history of fighting with the people of the Pacific. Pacific islanders fought with Australians in the Second World War. At a time when they were treated by many as second-class citizens, many worked alongside Australian soldiers—sometimes until they dropped. It is said that no living Australian was left behind, not even during heavy combat. The compassion of the Pacific islanders earned them the eternal gratitude of Australian soldiers and the nickname 'fuzzy wuzzy angels' became legendary. When the 2022 floods hit Lismore, soldiers from the Republic of Fiji were here for a war exercise in the Coral Sea. They spent their first full day in Australia with the 8th/9th Battalion rebuilding an access road. Over the next few weeks the forces continued to support our defence forces fixing bridges, removing dangerous debris and generally assisting in the New South Wales clean-up. It makes sense to enable faster migration for people from the Pacific. While we need to be careful that we don't steal their workers, we do need to streamline the migration process for those who wish to come here. A streamlined approach to migration from the Pacific will also enable a streamlined process for these people to citizenship. And guess what? Our citizenship will enable entry to the Australian Defence Force. Here in Australia we are struggling to fill our enlistment quotas, let alone keep people, so why not increase the pool of people the ADF can recruit from? Here's something novel: why not streamline the process even further for those Pacific islanders who want to join our Australian Defence Force and encourage them to do so? These people are our family. If they want to join the Australian Defence Force, we should do everything we can to make sure that happens. It shouldn't be that difficult. We know that it's difficult for Australians to join. It takes months and months. Seriously, if we could get this down pat, it would be really nice. I can only hope that we could lean on them, and the New Zealanders in the future, and have that very open invite for our Defence forces. Not just talking about it. I'm sick of the walk and talk here about our Defence forces working together, but actually having a revolving door. If you want to come here and serve our country, good for you. Your visa should be ticked off very quickly and you should be allowed in those boots. Because by God we need you. We have Pacific islanders out there who are going to be climate refugees. Let's talk about that. Do you want to move them all at once? Let's get this on the board and talk about this, because this is what happening. This is what is real. At the same time we need to make sure they're safe. We have an amendment that the Jacqui Lambie Network will be putting up. That amendment is pretty simple. This whole lottery process—you can't be bloody serious, can you? Right now that 3,000 people—you should be reducing this to what you need in this country. What you need right now are carers out there. You need child carers and aged carers. We need them by the thousands. So while you're doing your lottery draw, just like I have spoken to Senator Wong last week, you need to reduce that. We need certain people. If you want to leave it to a lottery draw in the end, because you can only bring in 3,000—where does the number 3,000 come from? Because by God, we need a lot more than that in aged care. We need a lot more than that in child care. We need more than that out on our farms. These Pacific islanders have proven themselves over and over again. They are reliable and trustworthy and they love Australia as much as we do. So where does your cap of 3,000 come from, for goodness sake? Isn't it better to start moving them now than to wait for their islands to start going under? I would have thought to start getting them settled here and make sure that they feel belonging here would be great unity for this country. So I'm not sure about your lottery process. I'm happy to support this, but your number 3,000, I don't understand why it can't be more. Like I said, they are proven. I can't understand why we can't target where these jobs are going, because that is what it should look like. So if your lottery is not bringing that up and I can't get more about this whole lottery system, then we're probably going to have a problem with votes in here. But you're going to have to refine your lottery system. So I will leave that with you and I will allow you people to discuss that over the next 15 or 20 minutes or whenever you want to take the vote. But right now we're not keen. 12:37 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I rise to sum up the debate on the Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023. These bills support the introduction of a new Pacific engagement visa allowing up to 3,000 nationals of Pacific countries and Timor-Leste to come to Australia as permanent migrants each year. The new Pacific engagement visa is an important initiative of the government's plan to build a stronger Pacific family. It is designed to grow the Pacific and Timor-Leste diaspora here in Australia. Importantly, the program will address the underrepresentation of some of our closest neighbours in Australia's permanent migration program. In 2021-22 less than a thousand permanent migrants from Pacific island countries and Timor-Leste made Australia their home. That is just 0.7 per cent, less than one per cent, of the total permanent migration intake of 143,536 people that year. The Pacific and Timor-Leste diaspora already make an incredible contribution to Australian communities and have done so for many years. This government wants to grow and support the Pacific diaspora communities in Australia. That aspiration is part of our wider agenda for strengthening Australia's relationships with the countries of the Pacific and Timor-Leste. The new Pacific engagement visa will create new opportunities for people of the Pacific and Timor-Leste to live, work and be educated in Australia. This will deepen our bonds as peoples and enrich our communities and countries. The Pacific engagement visa was a commitment the Albanese government took to the last election. Since coming to office last year, the Albanese government has consulted closely with Pacific partners and Timor-Leste on the Pacific engagement visa. These discussions have been invaluable, and we have designed the Pacific engagement visa program in response to their feedback. These bills are the first steps in enabling implementation of the visa. The Pacific engagement visa will establish a permanent resident visa program for participating countries across the Pacific and Timor-Leste. Up to 3,000 visas, inclusive of partners and dependent children, will be allocated annually through a ballot process. A ballot system will ensure equal and transparent access to the visa pathway. The ballot will be open to eligible nationals of participating Pacific countries and Timor-Leste. This will include Pacific nationals already in Australia on a valid temporary visa, such as those working here under the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme. Eligible participants aged 18 to 45 will register in the ballot. Participants randomly selected in the ballot can then apply for the Pacific engagement visa and include their partner and dependent children in their application. To be granted a visa, they will need to meet eligibility criteria, and these visa eligibility criteria will include having a job offer in Australia and meeting English language, health and character requirements. An offshore service provider will work directly with successful ballot entrants to connect them with employers in Australia, providing access to a variety of roles at a range of skill levels. The service provider will also guide successful entrants through the visa application process. It will also deliver culturally and linguistically relevant program outreach and help prepare visa holders for life in Australia. While finding employment in Australia will be an important first step, we know the success of this initiative will ultimately depend on a positive settlement experience for each individual or family. That's why the government is extending supports and services to Pacific engagement visa holders upon their arrival in Australia. In addition to access to Australia's universal health care and public schooling systems, participants will be eligible for post-arrival settlement support through the Settlement Engagement and Transition Support Program. They will also have access to the Adult Migrant English Program. We are committed to growing a vibrant and engaged diaspora through this visa. As such, it is important that participants are ensured basic levels of economic security. Subject to the passage of a separate bill, the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific) Bill 2023, Pacific engagement visa holders will have access to benefits to support the cost of raising a family and ease the financial burden of education and training. This will include access to family tax benefit A and eligibility for a health care card and rent assistance. To promote opportunities for education, career development and economic mobility, participants will have access to the Higher Education Loan Program, VET student loans, Austudy and youth allowance payments. Access to education and training will broaden the scope of participation across a range of skill levels and experiences, addressing concerns in our region around brain drain. I want to update the Senate on the role of the visa pre-application process, or ballot, in the Pacific engagement visa. There will be a two-stage process in applying for the visas. In the first stage, interested persons will register in a ballot. The ballot will then randomly select people to proceed to the second stage of applying for the visa. The use of a ballot is based on Pacific migration schemes that have successfully operated in New Zealand for decades. The ballot will give all interested Pacific islanders an equal chance of being selected to apply for a visa, regardless of skill levels. This will help avoid brain drain from Pacific countries. It will also reduce processing times and costs, making the visa more affordable and accessible for low-income Pacific nationals. The role of a ballot has been supported by Pacific governments as a way of avoiding brain drain and ensuring fairness in giving their people access to the new visa. In conclusion, the Pacific engagement visa is a key element in the government's policies for strengthening and deepening Australia's Pacific relationships. It will strengthen our links with the Pacific family and deepen our ties to the region that is our home and critical to our future. Debate adjourned. Ordered that resumption of debate be made an order of the day for the next sitting. MOTIONS 25 MOTIONS Israel 25 12:45 Se 280304 Victoria nator THORPE () (): by leave—Thank you to the government for allowing this to happen. I rise to speak to this motion as I think we're all hurting. We're hurting because, instead of moving towards peace—which is what every human being in this world desires—the world is being plunged into another war, costing thousands of lives already. We all know that that's by far not the end of it. I also rise because the debate on the international stage so far and in this very country has been extremely one sided. Just a week ago, the Sydney Opera House and this very building were lit up in blue and white, a symbol of the undifferentiated position this government takes on this conflict. The world and the Australian government is portraying this as an assault on the Israeli people only as a further attempt to eradicate the Jewish people. My thoughts are with the many lives lost and those families who have lost loved ones. But this war goes beyond that and is also an attack on the Palestinian people. While the world mourns what has happened to Israelis, governments—including this one—seem to condone the tragedy unfolding for Palestinians. Israel's indiscriminate bombings on Gaza are killing thousands of innocent people—people who already had to suffer for so many decades in what is often called the world's biggest prison. These people didn't attack Israel, and yet they are the human collateral of Israel fighting back against Hamas with unprecedented force. They will be the ones suffering the long-term consequences, which will more than likely be the continued, and possibly reinforced, oppression of the Palestinian people through Israel. How can the world let this happen? All the talk of governments supporting a two-state solution seem all but forgotten, worth nothing but a side note. Let's be honest: the current war has potentially set the solution back decades. Most Palestinians want nothing but to live peacefully in a free Palestine. For 75 years now, Palestine has been under brutal occupation. The state of Israel was founded on Palestinian land in 1948, when tens of thousands of Palestinians fleeing violence sought refuge in Gaza as their towns and villages were ethnically cleansed. Palestinians call this the Nakba, meaning catastrophe. About 80 per cent of people in Gaza are refugees or descendants of the Nakba. As the world was reminded over the past week, the Nakba is not just a historic event. Palestinian voices have all but been silenced over what happened, so I want to share today the powerful words of Sarah Sari, a young Palestinian woman: 'Throughout these 75 years, not once was this parliament lit up in a red, green and black. Not once was the illegal apartheid state of Israel condemned for their inhuman, violent, repressive siege. You have stayed silent for 75 years. You have stayed silent throughout the whole year when 250 Palestinians were killed up to Saturday, including children. You have stayed silent to the illegal open-air prison that Palestinians have been blockaded under for 20 years. You have stayed silent as children were being kidnapped, homes were being demolished and people were being wrongfully convicted, tortured and terrorised. You have been silent when we have been denied human rights, when we have lived in unliveable conditions, when we have been attacked, oppressed, silenced and suppressed. The sheer hypocrisy genuinely aches my heart. You might say silent but we will not be.' Sarah continues, 'Falsehood and propaganda have attempted to shift the narrative away from the root cause of the violence. The media, politicians, news and celebrities have dismissed us as peoples. They have rebranded our cause to one of terrorism and barbaric violence. Where was the outrage when atrocities were being inflicted on the people of Palestine all these years? The camera is turned on their bruises but turned away when we are dying. The core issue of this conflict is 75 years of violent displacement, apartheid, segregation, land theft, humiliation and dehumanisation. Time and time again, the international community has failed us. Western powers have failed us. Our very own country that we stand on today has failed us. Over the past few days, Palestinians have been stripped of our humanity, paving a bloodshed rooted with lies. Do we not matter as much? Why is the death of 3,000 Palestinian children overlooked? Or Israel's repeated bombing of Gaza? Why has the world turned a blind eye to the millions of displaced or killed Palestinians? Do Palestinian lives not matter? The world jumped up and down, condemning, supporting, sympathising with the occupier. The blather double standard is shameful.' As a First Nations woman, Sarah's words ring all too true to me. Palestinians live with a generational trauma of oppression and dispossession. They continue to fight for sovereignty, liberation and land back, as do first peoples of this country. Colonisation and dispossession are not things of the past you just read about in the history books. They are ongoing, violent processes happening right now. You have the responsibility to support Palestinians standing against it, just as you have the responsibility to support First Nations people here standing against it. I am not surprised that the Australian government, which is itself an illegal occupier of these very lands, condones illegal occupation of other lands and sides with an oppressive regime. It is not even a double standard; it is simply placing a lower value on black and brown people, as well as on Muslims. I think the West has been quite consistent in that approach. Governments across the world, in an attempt to address antisemitism and somehow address the horrors of the Holocaust, are allowing Israel to get away with apartheid, ethnic cleansing, detention of children, torture, restriction of movement and other freedoms, and the illegal occupation of land. After every genocide, the world cries out, 'Never again,' and yet here you see another attempted genocide unfold right in front of your eyes, and you don't just watch on quietly but also actively support the oppressor. But we will not allow you to get away with that. While I am, by all means, condemning the attacks by Hamas on the Israeli people, I am also condemning the violence Israel is and has been inflicting on Palestinians since 1948. I stand with the Palestinian people for their right to self-determination. As long as we allow for the continued oppression of Palestinians and place higher value on the lives and right to self-determination of some over others, we will not see peace in the Middle East. There cannot be peace without justice and there cannot be healing without justice. I would like to finish with Sarah's words: 'Peace is not possible without our freedom from our oppressors. If the peace you seek does not include an end to the occupation, the right of return, the end of the Gaza siege, then you are not calling for peace.' Debate adjourned. BILLS 27 BILLS Family Law Amendment Bill 2023, Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023 27

Family Law Amendment Bill 2023

Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023

Second Reading 27 12:56 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia I rise to speak in relation to the Family Law Amendment Bill and the Family Law Amendment (Information sharing) Bill 2023, which are before the Senate this morning. I have concerns about the simplified list of considerations proposed by the government in this bill. As usual, Labor's approach to issues that require nuance and precision. Especially given that this legislation deals with the breakdown of families in exceedingly traumatic circumstances it is imprecise and heavy-handed, creating more and not less confusion. Labor's revised list requires the court only to 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 is safe to do so'. However, the list does not require the court to consider whether the benefits of a 'meaningful' relationship, as is presently the case. The word 'meaningful' has been entirely removed. This is a subtle but profound change that could see children not being given the opportunity to have a meaningful relationship with one parent as this would no longer be a priority in the legislation. Of course, the term 'meaningful' requires careful definition, but it at least signals that the Australian legal system recognises that it is important—indeed, vital—for children to have a meaningful relationship with both parents. Labor's amendment seems destined to lessen the importance of and I suspect it will make it even more difficult for fathers to have meaningful relationships with their children when families break down, as is presently the case. This odd decision to delete the word 'meaningful' also signals, for the majority of separating parents who do not go to court and who are not represented by lawyers but who make decisions in the shadow of the law, that a child's relationship to the parents does not need to be meaningful. For example, a wife who leaves her husband might feel more emboldened to lessen the presence of the child's father or vice versa. A supervised visit once a month might be a relationship, but it seems that it would fall short of a test of enduring a meaningful relationship. Again, this is complicated and perhaps somewhat semantic, but why the change? These amendments also carry implications for extended family networks, because Labor's list says that the court needs to consider not just the benefits to the child of a relationship with parents but also the benefit of a relationship with others who are significant to the child. Relationships with grandparents, aunties and uncles, cousins or stepsiblings may be of great importance to children. With this amendment, the court need not consider the benefits of a meaningful relationship with those people, only the benefits of 'a' relationship. This could mean that children end up having a brief supervised visit with extended family members as opposed to meaningful time. Labor are essentially lessening the significance of family relations in this bill at a time when many Australians feel the family is already under attack and being undermined. It's always tricky to rely on words like 'meaningful' when you are dealing with legislation and legislative reform, especially with sensitive topics such as this. But it is quite evident that this particular adjustment is downplaying the importance of family relationships and children's lives. Bodies like the Law Council of Australia have expressly raised this as an issue which should be corrected. Furthermore, the most significant part of schedule 1 would repeal the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility that applies when courts make parenting orders. Some history is needed here. The introduction of that presumption was a triumph of bipartisanship and sensible reform under the Howard government. Prior to 2003, there was widespread concern about how courts dealt with contact and residency issues for children after a relationship had broken down following a divorce. The way the courts approached those issues left many parents feeling excluded from their children's lives after separation, and it often resulted in the debate turning away from the benefits children derived from a positive and caring relationship with both mother and father and instead focusing on arguments concerning children having equal time with each parent—which is not necessarily the same thing, as any child of a divorce would tell us. Against that backdrop, Prime Minister Howard commissioned an inquiry into the family law system which resulted in the landmark report titled Every picture tells a story. That report was a great accomplishment, and its recommendations were unanimous and bipartisan. It involved a roll call of Labor luminaries such as Julia Irwin, the Hon. Graham Edwards, Jennie George AO, the Hon. Roger Price and Harry Quick. These MPs joined coalition members of the committee to work through the issues over a number of years, and they were united in recommending a presumption of equal and shared parental responsibility. The Liberal and Labor parties joined together to work through a complex and important issue, relying on moral principles and common sense as their guide. Their recommendations were given effect by changes to the Family Law Act passed in 2006 under the Howard government. Among other things, those reforms said the courts must apply a presumption that it's in the best interests of the child for there to be equal and shared parental responsibility. Of course, the presumption does not apply in circumstances where there is abuse or family violence. It's not a presumption that parenting orders should allocate time to parents on a fifty-fifty basis; rather, it's about the shared responsibility that parents have for the decision-making about their child after separation. One parent's perspective must not be discarded unjustly. Both parents' voices must be heard and respected. This bill removes many of those guiderails introduced in 2006, contrary to the recommendations of the ALRC. The ALRC said that it: … supports the idea that a presumption of shared parental responsibility serves as a good starting point for negotiations between parents and recommends that concept be retained. However, the ALRC noted that 'in practice, parental responsibility has often been conflated with the concept of equal time care arrangements for children, which could detract from a focus on what is in the child's best interests'. This led the ALRC to recommend that the wording of the relevant provisions be clarified to ensure that the courts and parents understand that parental responsibility is not necessarily the same thing as spending an equal amount of time with parents. A child might spend a week at their mother's house and a week at their father's house, but this doesn't mean both parents are sharing equal responsibility or jointly making major decisions. The ALRC recommended 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. Both phrases express the concept of each parent taking responsibility for their children's lives while respecting the view of the other parent, meaning they must strive to share responsibility and cooperate to the best of their abilities. The joint select committee inquiry into Australia's family law system set up by the former coalition government investigated this question, and the committee expressly considered the ALRC recommendation about the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility and acknowledged the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility and how it is often conflated with equal time. They recommended amending the words of the presumption 'to address the current misunderstanding that the provision of equal shared parental responsibility equates to equal time with the children'. In classic Labor fashion, their amendment goes much further than what's been recommended and entirely misses the point. The ALRC's recommendations are clear: the presumption should be reformed and clarified. Many across the legal profession raised concerns during the consultation process on the exposure draft after it was released. The Family Law Practitioners Association of Western Australia supported a change in labelling for the very reasons identified by the Australian Law Reform Commission. The Hunter Valley Family Law Practitioners Association submitted that the legislation should contain a presumption of the kind recommended by the ALRC. The problem that Labor claims to be addressing is the misunderstanding of the presumption of equal shared responsibility as meaning equal time spent. Their explanatory memorandum refers to the ALRC report, which found that the essence of the presumption was useful and should be retained. Indeed, the explanatory memorandum states that the problem is that 'parents can enter negotiations based on incorrect assumptions about their entitlements'. Normally you would address this misunderstanding and incorrect assumption by providing a concise definition to reduce that ambiguity, which in fact is what the ALRC recommended. But instead of doing that and providing clarity, Labor has decided to scrap the presumption altogether, which means we lose the principle that when it's safe and in the best interests of the child for parents to have joint decision-making responsibility about long-term issues, —something that Labor MPs strived to ensure was legislated in the Howard years—we therefore lose a clear statement of the law saying that it's in a child's interests for its parents to co-operate and agree about how best to raise their child. Again, the fundamental importance of the family and parental authority have been undermined, and children will suffer a trauma as a result, as one parent is denied the right to have a say in their life, even if they do get to spend equal time with them as the other parent. For very many parents who negotiate in the shadow of the law without lawyers or courts, this is a profoundly damaging change. The genuine best interests of Australian children must be provided for, but Labor has taken a heavy-handed, sloppy approach that will do harm to children and to parents experiencing the awful trauma of family breakdown and divorce. 13:06 Senator HANSO BK6 Queensland N (—) (): I rise to speak to the Family Law Amendment Bill. The legislation gives effect to several recommendations I have made as Deputy Chair of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System, established after I lobbied then prime minister Malcolm Turnbull. There is broad support for some of the changes contained in the legislation, and I will refer to this later. Some of them are changes I have been advocating on the select committee and in public for many years. No-one could argue against focusing on the best interests of children involved in family law cases. However, by removing the presumption of shared parental responsibility as a factor that must be considered in deciding custody arrangements, this legislation could well have the opposite effect. This presumption has never been about equal time in child custody arrangements. It doesn't matter that it may have created this perception. The court and the legal profession have a duty to explain it and make sure that parents seeking resolutions in or outside of court do not labour under this misunderstanding. If they have not, then the failure is theirs and not that of the legislation. The presumption has always been about recognising the truth that when you are responsible for bringing a child into the world with someone else, you share equal responsibility for the child's care. This shouldn't be a controversial principle. Not if you think people should take responsibility for their actions, at any rate. The introduction of the shared parental responsibility presumption was almost unanimously supported by this parliament in 2006. The Gillard Labor government kept the presumption in place when it modified the legislation in 2011. In 2020 Labor in opposition tried to remove it and failed. Today they're seeking to remove it again, despite expert warnings they should retain it. Former Family Court judge Professor Richard Chisholm warned the abolition of the presumption should not inadvertently bring Australia back to a time when mothers were granted primacy in court battles. He also warned that removing the presumption would bring back the old 80-20 model that underpinned an assumption that mothers would be responsible for the bulk of childcaring duties following a relationship breakdown. He recommended the legislation should stress the importance of continued involvement of both parents. I quote: 'It is important for the majority of children to continue the involvement of both parents after family separation. It is right that the legislation should stress this because it seems it was once assumed that it is enough for children to have one involved parent, with the other, typically the father, providing financial support and weekend entertainment.' In his submission on the exposure draft of this bill, Emeritus Professor of Law at the University of Queensland Patrick Parkinson AM said the government had not made any reasonable case for what he called 'radical changes to the philosophy of part 7 of the act'. He warned of increased litigation, increased difficulty in resolving disputes and increased costs for parents and courts. Professor Parkinson noted these changes would unsettle the law and represented a fundamental change to the values that are expressed to underlie the family law system. He noted, 'An evaluation of the 2006 family law reforms by the Australian Institute of Family Studies found the philosophy of shared parental responsibility is overwhelmingly supported by parents, the legal system, professionals and service professionals.' For him, and for me, the most alarming aspect of the bill is the removal of this philosophy. The bill effectively deletes it, removing the need to ensure that children have the benefit of both their parents having meaningful involvement in their lives to the maximum extent consistent with the child's best interests; that children have the right to know and be cared for by both their parents; that children have a right to, on a regular basis, spend time with and communicate with both their parents and other people significant to their care, welfare and development, particularly grandparents; that parents should jointly share duties and responsibilities concerning the care, welfare and development of their children; and that parents should agree about the future parenting of their children. I think it's arguable that this legislation contravenes the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Australia signed and ratified in 1990. Article 7 of the convention says: The child shall … have … as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents. Article 9 says: States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child's best interests. Article 18 says: States Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child. I think family lawyers might want to brush up on their constitutional law and fit parents unduly denied access to their children might want to think about approaching the High Court to challenge the validity of this legislation, and I have heard that parents are considering taking out a class action with regard to this. Evidence presented to the joint select committee included an analysis compiled by the North Dakota and Oregon state universities that concluded that fathers really do matter. It supported the importance of fathers being able to connect with their children through shared activities. It confirmed that fathers play an important role in the lives of children and the need for positive connections contributing to a child's wellbeing. It analysed data which showed that, where there were positive connections and communication with fathers, children were much less likely to have problems later in life, and it affirmed the need for courts to consider the positive contributions fathers can make to their children's lives. I note the bill still requires courts to consider the benefit to children of maintaining a relationship with both parents but, importantly, removes the term 'meaningful' as a descriptor of the relationship. Why? It's because the Albanese government has adopted the broken philosophy promoted by women's advocacy and domestic violence groups that children are only safe from violence in the care of their mothers. This denies evidence that women are more likely to commit violence against their children than fathers. There have been several high-profile cases in Australia documenting this fact. It denies evidence that 25 per cent of reported domestic violence is committed by women. They're effectively saying that shared parental responsibility makes it easier for violent men to insist on a post-separation parenting role. As Professor Parkinson points out, however, this is not supported by the evidence. In fact, the AIFS study found that many more fathers than mothers were concerned for their children's safety in shared parenting arrangements. This was borne out in evidence provided to the joint select committee inquiry into the family law system. Ultimately, the evidence was clear: the system is already heavily biased against fathers. The removal of shared parental responsibility increases the possibility of entrenching this bias. The demonisation of Australian men is unjustified and needs to stop. Men are already overrepresented in homelessness, in jobs with high risk to safety, as victims of violent crimes and, tragically, in suicides. Many of these studies are associated with unfair and unjust family law outcomes from a system biased against fathers. The removal of shared parental responsibility carries a strong risk of even more unjust outcomes. In principle I support some other parts of this bill. In the joint select committee inquiry I argued for, and I now support in particular, the emphasis on the wishes of the child and the requirement that independent children's lawyers, or ICLs, be required to learn and advocate the child's wishes. I have been advocating for many years that the child's wishes, where possible, be objectively considered by the courts. However, to do this in such a way that the wishes of children as young as five are objectively presented to the court will require specialist training for ICLs. I also support the mechanism aimed at preventing the manipulation of the family law system—what this bill considers to be harmful proceedings. This is also something I've been advocating for many years—preventing people from using the system to attack or punish an ex-partner during acrimonious separations. However, it must be fairly and equally applied to both mothers and fathers. My fear is that it won't be fairly applied. Advocates for these changes—and I note Senator Rice's telling contribution to this debate—focus only on the rights of women and children and ignore the rights of men. That is the fear of good fathers mired in the family law system: unfair outcomes for them based on the violent behaviour of a few. A lot of women also provided evidence of bias against them in the system, but in my opinion it is mainly men who are denied fair access to see or spend time with their children. There was clear evidence presented to the joint select committee that many mothers made unfounded or deliberately false allegations of violence against fathers. Ninety per cent of parents alleging child sexual abuse in contested hearings from 2012 until 2019 were mothers. In 90 per cent of these hearings, the judge found no risk of sexual harm to the child or children—90 per cent. In 25 per cent of these cases, the allegations were found to be deliberately misleading. In another 46 per cent of these cases, the allegations were mistaken. In 88 per cent of these cases, the allegations were not believed by the judge. In 62 per cent of these cases, the judge awarded shared parental responsibility or sole responsibility to the parent against whom the allegations were made. In 66 per cent of these cases, orders were made increasing parenting time with the parent against whom the allegations were made. This was confirmed by former Family Court judge Justice David Collier, who said allegations of child sexual abuse are being increasingly invented by mothers to stop fathers from seeing their children. He said: I'm satisfied that a number of people who have appeared before me have known that it is one of the ways of completely shutting husbands out of the child's life. In principle, I also welcome the government's support for extending the Lighthouse Project, but I am disappointed that the sensible changes I have proposed to the child support system were not reflected in these reforms. As Professor Parkinson has noted, the current system provides perverse incentives for primary caregivers to resist children spending more time with the other parent to avoid a reduction in the child support obligation. My recommendations would remove this incentive and make the system fairer and simpler, and, for the record, I'll list them: ensure parents aren't left with incomes below $27,000 per annum; assess salaries on a 38-hour working week; base child support on the number of children at the time of separation, not on additional children to other partners; assess residential costs individually and include family tax benefit in assessing incomes; exclude lump sums such as WorkCover, TPI or superannuation payments in assessing incomes; and have child support payments paid to a separate child support account, subject to scrutiny by Services Australia to ensure all child support is going to support the children. Since being elected I've always fought for the law to treat Australians fairly and equally, regardless of gender, race, religion or other identities. This has been my motivation for working to reform Australia's broken family law system. It was my hope that the joint select committee inquiry would generate the evidence to back such reforms. The inquiry certainly achieved that, but I didn't count on the perverse motivations of others on the committee to drive the system into potentially greater conflict and unfairness. Families experiencing the system, both now and in the future, have my profound sympathies, because the chance of genuine reform has been squandered. I will never stop fighting for fairness and for the best outcomes for children and families in the Australian family law system. I will be moving amendments to this bill—on domestic violence matters requiring proof, not just allegations, and on children's lawyers requiring further training—and I would like to see a sliding scale or a cap on legal costs. Too many parents out there are suffering because of this. This is a backward step, as I've said. It will just hurt those fathers who are already hurting from not being able to see their children, for no reason whatsoever. You're going to keep people going through the court system. Lawyers are going to make a lot of money out of this. I feel sorry for the children. You're not considering the children at all. You're a selfish bunch. 13:21 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I rise to make a contribution in support of the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 and the associated bill, and I do so in my capacity as Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. I joined with my colleagues to inquire into and report to the Senate on this legislation. Can I say from the outset that we know that people who've experienced the family law system hold deeply felt beliefs which are often based on a very sensitive personal experience. I have my own lived experience with the content of this bill, but today I'll be speaking based on the wealth of evidence of experts. I acknowledge my committee colleagues who engaged in this inquiry with a compassionate and constructive approach. I acknowledge Senator Scarr and Senator Waters, who are in the chamber today. It is my hope that all senators can follow that lead through this debate on the issues that mean so much to so many. I also want to acknowledge the Attorney-General, who engaged with the inquiry in good faith and was receptive to recommendations, some of which have made their way into the package of legislation, and that is a very good thing. A range of stakeholders from across the family law system engaged constructively in this approach, and I appreciate their time and expertise after what I know has been a very long road to reform. Overwhelming evidence supports these changes. Lived experience from victims-survivors supports these changes. It's important for me to take a moment here and zoom out to the broader work of the Albanese Labor government on eradicating family and domestic violence. We know that these two things are linked. At the inquiry that we held, two victims-survivors gave evidence during the day, and I want to begin my contribution by reading out what they had to say about this bill. It's really important, I think, that we start this debate acknowledging the words of these two wonderful women. Ms Michelle Baumann said this at the inquiry: As a mother who has experienced family violence for years and tried to have the Family Court recognise the impacts of this, the biggest part of my journey relates to my ability to protect my children and give them a sense of safety, wherever they are, and agency over their living arrangements, which is a key part of their safety. I am very interested in talking with you about issues of child safety and family violence, and the critical importance of children's agency in these circumstances. I fully support the removal of the presumption of shared care and responsibility. As a victim-survivor of family violence, I left my abusive partner more than eight years ago and have endured unrelenting, unabated coercive control ever since, largely through the power and control that our Family Court orders have afforded him. We have equal shared care and responsibility, with our children shifting between our households every week. The children are sent to the abuse that I escaped from. The impacts on them are devastating and lasting. Ms Charisse Hay also gave evidence at the inquiry. We are going to have a debate today about what the best interests of the child means, and this is what Ms Hay had to say from her experience: Perhaps the question we need to ask is this: if a parent fails to act in the best interests of their child, is it in a child's best interest to be forced to spend time with them? Through my lived experiences, I learnt that reporting family violence risked negative judgement and criticism at best and counter-allegations of parental alienation at worst. Women and children are silenced and forced to endure ongoing and escalating violence without protection or escape, sometimes for decades post-separation. I left my abuser 13 years ago and I'm still being financially, emotionally and psychologically abused. I am now a registered psychologist treating other families and adult children who have been through the same. This is what I want every senator who speaks on this bill to go back and read and even watch—that is, when Ms Hay says this: When the decision-makers remain ignorant to the abusive dynamics that place women and children in ongoing danger, the family law system fails to act in the best interests of the child. I wanted to start my contribution with those powerful words from two women who were representative of many people in the family law system who are also facing family violence, because at the inquiry the Women's Legal Service said it best when they said: We are hopeful that for our clients, who are among the most marginalised and disadvantaged in the community, these changes will mean their experience through the family law system will lead to safer outcomes for children and parents/carers and it will be less confusing and traumatic. This is what we are talking about today—long overdue reforms to minimise harm and trauma of some of our most vulnerable people. Our family law system has been subject to more than two dozen inquiries in the past decade, including a comprehensive examination from the Australian Law Reform Commission. Through repeated inquiries and subsequent reports, a clear picture of the challenges has emerged. It is now broadly agreed by experts and advocates in this space that legislation is overly complex and confusing. This confusion results in community misperceptions about the law and in some cases unnecessary protracted litigation. It is critical that our family law system places the best interests of children at the centre of its operation. These reforms go some way towards that goal. These amendments underscore the government's commitment to making the family law system safer, simpler to engage with and fairer for Australian families. Our amendments are a first step in the government addressing a backlog of recommendations from countless inquiries and reviews never progressed by the previous government. It is not an accident that the first tranche of reforms is one that elevates children's best interests to where they should be—the central concern of this legislation and the central concern of the family law system. The bill itself, including government amendments to it, will make several changes to the existing family law legislation. These changes will clarify and simplify sections of the act that have consistently led to more protracted, costly and adversarial experiences for families in the court system. The bill will clarify the needlessly confusing framework currently used for making decisions about parenting arrangements. Our changes will make it clear that the best interests of children are the priority. This amendment simplifies the list of best-interest factors that must be considered by the court when making determinations in family law matters. During the inquiry into this bill, we heard from advocates who told us that this change will assist them in communicating with their clients on how to determine arrangements that serve the best interests of children. This amendment will ensure that both parents making post-separation arrangements and the court officials making determinations about them will have a straightforward definition of 'best-interest factors'. It will mean all parties can remain focused on the best interests of affected children. This bill will also ensure the definitions of 'best interests' accommodate the connection to culture and the ways in which family is understood across First Nations communities. We know, because advocates have told us, that connection to community is central to the wellbeing of First Nations kids. The bill makes it clear that the best-interests factors recognise the importance of First Nations children's right to participate in and enjoy their culture. The amendment will also ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kinship groups are appropriately recognised within definitions of 'member of the family' and 'relative' in the Family Law Act. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 Senator Green, you will be in continuation when the debate is resumed. We will now proceed to two-minute statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 33 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Israel 33 13:30 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I rise to acknowledge the truly shocking images we've seen on our TV screens over the past 10 days. The scenes we've seen in Israel—where a terrorist organisation has attacked and sought to disrupt the State of Israel—are some of the most dreadful images that have ever been seen in our history. There is no equivalence here between the State of Israel and the terrorist organisation Hamas. I regret to say that too many people have not been able to see the true moral position here. On one side you have one of our allies, a democratic state, and on the other side you have a terrorist organisation which believes Israel should not exist. In fact, one of its stated aims is to destroy Israel. That's why the scenes at the Sydney Opera House last Monday night were so disappointing. We saw a group of demonstrators celebrating the death of civilians. In doing so and uttering statements like, 'Gas the Jews,' they were breaking the New South Wales criminal code, which prevents the incitement of violence against the citizens of our state. I regret to say that we have not seen the action that should be applied here to protect our citizens. Of course we are concerned about everyone in the Middle East—all Israelis and all Palestinians—but there is a moral position here: Israel is our friend and ally and Hamas is a terrorist organisation that should not exist. Nuclear Weapons 33 13:32 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Yesterday was the 70th anniversary of the first mainland nuclear test at Emu Field, South Australia. This test—Totem 1—spread fallout across vast areas of land and it brought illness and death to people who were over 150 kilometres away. Karina Lester, a Yankunytjatjara Anangu woman whose late father, Yami Lester, was blinded by this test, has explained the intergenerational impacts of this testing. No consent was ever sought or given by any Anangu in the region for the use of their lands. I take this time today to acknowledge the deep and ongoing consequences of nuclear testing in Australia, which have disproportionately impacted First Nations people. I also acknowledge the impact of nuclear testing on the first peoples of the Pacific. In the 1990s I recall attending marches with thousands of others calling on the world to stop nuclear testing in the Pacific. The harm done by Australia's testing programs is still being felt by Australian people, along with calls from survivors and the general community for Australia to join the nuclear weapons ban treaty. This call is real and present. A core part of that call is due to the treaty containing provisions for victim assistance, environmental remediation and international cooperation under articles 6 and 7. Israel 33 13:34 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I speak today with a profound sense of sadness for the innocent civilians who have lost their lives in Gaza and Israel. No civilian should be the target of the violence of war. There is no place anywhere for racism, for discrimination, for antisemitism or for Islamophobia. The difference between what I am saying and what Labor and the coalition have said is that I condemn and mourn all civilian deaths. I'm disgusted at the active dehumanisation of Palestinians. The major parties have refused to condemn Israel's genocidal mission. Such is the devaluation of Palestinian lives that most in here couldn't even make mention of the 75 years of Israeli oppression. It's Nakba once again. For shame! Israel has now killed thousands of Palestinians and injured thousands more. Most are women and children. UNRWA has said Gaza is being strangled and it seems that the world right now has lost its humanity. The loss of humanity has been on glaring display in this chamber today. The silence of governments like ours on Israel's apartheid reeks of hypocrisy. For shame! Gaza has run out of body bags. Gaza is being bombed to dust, and Western governments are complicit. You are enabling genocide and the annihilation of Gaza and Palestinians. We have a government championing Israel's right to defend—that is, the terrorising and killing of more innocent civilians. There is something harrowingly wrong with those in charge who can't see the war crimes and the collective punishment being meted out by Israel and, even worse, are giving a moral pass to Israel to do whatever it wants to civilians. But the people are with Palestine. Hundreds are marching across the world. Stop the war on Gaza, end Israel's illegal occupation and free Palestine. Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 34 13:36 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia In last Saturday's referendum, well over 60 per cent of Western Australians voted a resounding 'no' to Labor's Voice. These people are neither racist nor are they denying that significant social and economic gaps exist in our state. Australian voters have provided all in this place with a very powerful reminder that they will not be bullied, conned or fooled by a lack of detail, which was replaced in this case with emotionally manipulative messaging and, quite frankly, paternalistic symbolism. If they are not convinced, they will vote no—and they have. As a senator for Western Australia, there is absolutely no question in my mind that Western Australians are good people who want the best outcomes for all of our Aboriginal communities, particularly those in regional and remote areas. However, they were simply not convinced that Labor's proposal for a Voice would make any tangible difference in our state. While the initial focus today has rightly been on the Prime Minister's catastrophic failure of national leadership, Western Australians must now turn their focus on the state Labor government. While the federal government provides billions of dollars every year to Western Australia for Indigenous programs, the Cook government, has the constitutional responsibility for delivering most of these programs. The state government delivers the health, education, infrastructure, training, housing, community safety and justice programs—all of which need to be delivered far more effectively in conjunction and consultation with the empowerment of local communities. It is time for Premier Cook to come out of his self-imposed witness protection on this issue and now start standing up to provide the leadership our Prime Minister has so failed to deliver. Economy 34 13:38 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania The Albanese government is delivering our ambitious agenda, focusing on taking the pressure off Australians that are feeling the stress of the cost of living. We were elected to grasp the opportunities presented to us as a country, and we are continuing with that Labor story to create fairness and opportunities for all. As a government, we're putting more roofs over the heads of Australians with the Housing Australia Future Fund, to build 30,000 social and affordable homes. We must build more houses to create a greater supply so that young Australians can believe that homeownership is within their grasp. We are strengthening Medicare, with urgent care clinics across the country providing greater access to health care when people need it. We have a plan to secure full-time jobs and we're closing the loopholes that create unfair workplaces. Australian workers deserve dignity in work and our closing the loophole workplace relations legislation will ensure that workers are treated with respect and that they will earn a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. We can be a country which builds things right here, which is why we are making record investment in Australian jobs and Australian manufacturing—growing our economy. We are the party who is providing access for education, which is why we announced last week that Labor will create another 300,000 fee-free places in 2024. We are putting downward pressure on electricity prices, with energy bill relief delivered to households when they need it through their winter and spring electricity bills. We will be a renewable energy superpower. We're investing in renewables because we believe in the future of this country, and we are investing in Australian people to give them more opportunities and a fairer society. Australian Constitution 34 13:40 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Last Saturday was the day Australians said no—no to feelings based governance, no to elevating one group within our community over another based only on race, no to a Prime Minister whose chief skill is to cry on cue and no to spending more tax dollars than our taxpayers can afford. Australians are already struggling with a cost-of-living crisis as a result of shoddy governance from successive parliaments. People need to keep more of their own money, not less. On Saturday, Australians realised that the people are the parliament's masters, not its servants. The irony is that the referendum did give Aboriginals a voice, and they used it. The five electorates with the largest Aboriginal population gave the Voice a thrashing. It was a result which clearly shows that Canberra no longer represents the values and beliefs of everyday Australians. For those in this place who supported racism and apartheid—and you were the majority—now is the time to ask yourself, 'What the hell was I thinking?' How could you think it was okay to take a system that has failed Aboriginal people for 120 years and embed, enshrine and perpetuate that system in the Constitution? We don't need to preserve a broken system that's failed Aboriginals in the bush; we need to tear it down. It's time to dismantle the Canberra Aboriginal industry and deliver resources directly to those in need in the bush. It's time to stop preventing rural Aboriginals from owning their own homes and running their own affairs. It's time for city grifters in comfortable offices thousands of kilometres from rural communities to stop keeping money meant for the bush—money that's used to fund their own empires and line their own pockets. Enough money goes into the funnel to make things right. A drip comes out the bottom. It's time to turn the damn funnel around. Today is a new day for Australia's Aboriginals. Let's not waste the chance to ask ourselves this question: who's best to run Australian Aboriginal affairs? Is it Canberra bureaucrats and the Aboriginal industry, or is it best run from local communities and councils right there in the bush, ready to get cracking on housing, roads, power and community facilities? South Australia: Multicultural Festival 35 13:42 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia We've had another outbreak in South Australia of diversity and inclusion lip service. This time it's with the cancellation of a Russian youth dance troupe called the Kalinka Russian Ensemble—a group of young performers, who are all Australians, by the way, aged between six and 20 years old, who've been banned from performing at the South Australian Multicultural Festival on 12 November. What a brilliant piece of diplomatic brinkmanship from South Australia's Minister for Tourism and Multicultural Affairs—if you can believe that—Zoe Bettison. Take that, Vladimir Putin! It's a clear message to the Kremlin from North Terrace, in little, old Adelaide. But it's not just the kids who've been banned; the minister also told the Russian Women's Association not to attend this very diverse and inclusive event. How will the patriarchy ever recover from this? Talk about empowerment! The Left's usual nagging about empowering women and girls once again is shown to be nothing but rhetoric from the Left in our state—sorry, ladies. It serves as a fine illustration of the hypocrisy of those who so loudly tout diversity, inclusion and equity. What they really care about is maintaining the current thing—whatever that chooses to be. Why are women and children being penalised here? They didn't do anything wrong, but they've been excluded. I've written to this minister to try to explain to her in relatively simple terms why she should reconsider. I doubt it will elicit much of a response, but there we go. So much for multiculturalism and gender equity in South Australia. Huon Valley Hilltop Hike 35 13:44 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania Last Saturday morning, I had the pleasure of attending the Huon Valley Hilltop Hike in Huonville, south of Hobart. Created in 2022 after the tragic loss of several young people from the Huon Valley community to suicide, the Hilltop Hike had the simple aim of starting a conversation about suicide prevention and mental health—and start a conversation it did. Last year, the event raised over $67,000, with all funds going directly into local mental health services and community mental health training. This was an astonishing achievement for such a small community, highlighting the willingness of the community to confront this too often difficult subject. Based on this success, the Hilltop Hike has now become an annual event, with the focus this year on youth mental health in the Huon Valley area. More than just a climb to the top of Huonville's Scenic Hill—and what a climb it is—the hike is a united front of a local community demonstrating their commitment to the mental wellbeing of the next generation. Money raised from this year's event will be used for the vital expansion of youth drop-in programs run by the Huon Valley Police and Community Youth Club. It's hoped the money raised for this event will allow the program to operate for five days a week, which will make a huge difference to the lives of vulnerable people in the Huon Valley community. This is yet another example of the power of charities in not only changing lives but positively transforming entire communities. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the Huonville Rotary Club members and all involved for their hard work and dedication in making this event possible. I know they had a number of sponsors; the list is too long to read in this short time. I also want to thank all those people who braved the cold, the bleak and the wet—and it was cold, bleak and wet—last Saturday morning in Hobart, in southern Tasmania. To the people who braved all those conditions to undertake the hike— (Time expired) Environment: Toondah Harbour 35 13:46 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Queensland is home to internationally significant wetlands, including Toondah Harbour, part of Moreton Bay. Toondah Harbour is the gateway to Minjerribah, or Stradbroke Island, and it's home to critically endangered migratory shorebirds and other threatened species, including koalas. Toondah Harbour is currently under threat from a $1.3 billion over-development proposal by Walker Corporation. The proposal would pave paradise to put up penthouses. Dredging Ramsar listed wetlands for a canal estate, with luxury high-rise residences no-one can afford, makes no sense except for the private profits of mega-property developers. This is a place of cultural significance to the Quandamooka First Nations people, who were not afforded proper consultation and who certainly have not given free, prior and informed consent. The federal environment department advised the former environment minister to reject this destructive proposal outright, saying it was clearly unacceptable. Despite this advice—and perhaps the sweetener of a $233,000 donation to the Liberal Party by Walker Corporation—then Minister Frydenberg allowed it to progress. The current minister for the environment has been silent on this project. I wonder if that has anything to do with Walker Corporation's donation of over $100,000 to the Labor Party. This project will have severe environmental impacts, and the Greens have strongly opposed it since day one. We will not let up. Right now the environment minister has yet to officially receive the environmental impact statement for the project, but it's expected any day now. Once she receives it, she'll have 40 business days to either approve or reject this damaging project. The Greens stand with the community in calling on the environment minister to reject this damaging proposal once and for all. Bowel Cancer 36 13:48 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland Last week I met with a constituent, Rachel Bernardo, a mother of three from Deception Bay who was diagnosed with stage 3 bowel cancer. Twelve months prior to her diagnosis she went to her GP with stomach pains, which were dismissed as constipation. One year on, she went to the Redcliffe emergency department with stomach pains and severe bloating. They found a tumour, which she had removed from her bowel, along with 20 cancerous lymph nodes, followed by six months of intensive chemotherapy. Prior to her diagnosis, she was fit and healthy with no noticeable symptoms besides tiredness, which was put down to having young children. Rachel continues to advocate for early onset bowel cancer, with one in 10 Australians under the age of 50 being diagnosed. Bowel cancer is the deadliest cancer for Australians aged between 25 and 45, which is why early detection is so important. More needs to be done to shed the perception that bowel cancer is an old person's disease. Rachel continues to push for lowering the screening age from 50 to 45 and closing the care gap with more support for younger bowel cancer sufferers, and dedicated bowel care nurses and rapid referrals. All these things could have made a difference in her situation, which may have looked very different if she had been asked the right questions and been taken seriously in the first place. Too many young people are having to advocate for their own health care and wait far too long to be seen. It's time our healthcare system took bowel cancer in young people much more seriously. Australian Constitution: Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice 36 13:49 Senator 30484 Western Australia BROCKMAN () (): On October 14 Australians overwhelmingly voted to protect our Constitution from a fundamentally flawed referendum proposal. Western Australia's vote was almost 64 per cent and, I expect, after the prepolls come, it will exceed that figure. Make no mistake, this was Labor's referendum, Anthony Albanese's referendum. The Prime Minister held the pen on the question and Australia will remember that. I want to thank all the no campaign volunteers, particularly in Swan and Fremantle. There were long days in the Western Australian heat and there are far, far too many to thank. But you know who you are and, from the bottom of my heart, I thank you deeply. Shamefully, following this overwhelming vote for unity from the Labor and the Greens supporters, particularly online, we have seen ongoing attacks on Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, a proud and powerful Australian senator. So where to from here? Back to first principles. We need to redouble our commitment to equality. Just as Australians voted for constitutional equality by rejecting this divisive referendum, we need to help our fellow Australians based on need, not on race, not on ethnicity, not on indigeneity. We don't need to divide Australia to help those in genuine need. We live in a fair, open and generous society. Australians' fundamental common sense has been on display once again. Launceston 36 13:51 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania Launceston is more than a pitstop or gateway to other attractions; it is a destination in its own right, the kind of place you want to spend a weekend, not just pass through. I think it is time to let the mainlanders in on the secret. We have done a good job marketing Launceston as a regional hub, as a launching pad to explore the east and west. People fly in, rent a car and hit the road. They either head to Cradle Mountain or to the east coast. But, believe it or not, there is more than that. We are missing a trick here. Launceston itself has so much to offer. It is perfect for those who want to enjoy laidback weekend without the need for hiking boots or a rental car. We have a vibrant food and drink scene. Black Cow is one of my favourites, as is Bar Stelo. Rhubarb gin—yes! It has stunning parks, a rich history and a thriving arts and culture scene. It is a place to unwind, explore and maybe indulge. I can't think of anything better than spending a weekend visiting the world-class wineries along the Tamar Valley wine trail. Jinglers Creek and of course Josef Chromy and, if you really want, the Batman Bridge cruise—a four-hour lunch and couple of bevvies. But we're not selling the story well enough. We are directing people towards the exits when we should be inviting them to stay and soak up all that Launceston has to offer. How many of you have heard of Cataract Gorge? I have people in my office, believe it or not, who had never heard of before. They were imports to the state, though, so I will let them have that. We should be putting it on postcards and shouting about it. It should be a Tasmanian icon. I don't want Launceston to remain a hidden gem. Launceston punches above its weight, and we should let the rest of Australia know about it. It is time to shift our marketing focus and show off Launceston as a destination worth lingering in, not just passing through. Australian Constitution: Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice 37 13:53 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Finally, the dangerous distraction of the referendum is over and we can get back to the real fight that the government have delayed for the last 12 months with excuses of saying they couldn't do anything until after the referendum, until we get this Voice. They couldn't implement the 339 recommendations to stop Aboriginal deaths in custody. They won't implement the recommendations of the Bringing them Home report when we have 23,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care. Labor, wake up! Wake up! Did the referendum not tell you that we don't want some tokenistic gesture and to go into your colonial Constitution? We want real justice. We want you to implement the recommendations that your Senator Dodson worked on in 1991. We want the Bringing them Home report to stop our children being stolen from the breasts of their mothers. You want to know what to do now? Act! Just act. Do your job, Labor. Don't wave our flag, wear our earrings, put our paintings in your offices and turn up to NAIDOC morning teas until you stop killing our people. You are now responsible for killing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in this country—deaths in custody, child removal, suicide. Congratulations, Labor! Food Plant Solutions 37 13:55 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania Today, 16 October, is World Food Day, a day to raise awareness of ongoing efforts to ensure food security across the globe. I wanted to take this opportunity to share with the Senate the work of a Tasmanian NGO Food Plant Solutions, which today has joined World Vision's international expert panel in their symposium at the Micronutrient Forum 6th Global Conference. Food Plant Solutions is a Tasmanian initiative, established in Devonport in 2007, and is supported very fulsomely by the local Rotary Club. This group creates educational materials about edible plants and their nutritional values. The group has a growing database of 30,000 edible plants from all around the world. Well-known Tasmanian agronomist Bruce French, who has spent time in Papua New Guinea working with malnourished communities, was one of the movement's founding members. At that time there was little information about local food sources, so Bruce took it upon himself to start building a database of those food sources and sharing best practices. Today, Food Plant Solutions works with local partners in more than 50 different countries to implement their programs and create resources to encourage these communities to eat food consisting of Indigenous plants in their area. Incidentally, the majority of these resources are written in local tongues, so the translation of these educational materials is a huge piece of work and an ongoing endeavour of Food Plant Solutions. On this World Food Day, I applaud Food Plant Solutions for making such a positive contribution to the fight against hunger and malnutrition and for promoting food security for all people worldwide, all from our own little home state of Tasmania. Israel 37 13:57 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I rise here, in the parliament of our nation, one of the most tolerant and successful multinational, multifaith nations in the world, to acknowledge the truth and the power of the words moved earlier today by Minister Wong condemning Hamas's attack on Israel. I add my support to all of the sentiments expressed in that statement. Australians are undoubtedly feeling the weight of this conflict and grappling with the fear and confusion that it has wrought. Throughout this parliament I have been privileged to act as the Chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Israel and in that capacity to form strong ties with the Australian Jewish community. Overt displays of antisemitism, which we have witnessed here in Australia in the past days, have no justification. Our Jewish community here in Australia have expressed to me their fear and distress at these events. In the midst of an ongoing conflict plagued by false binaries and misinformation, I want to take the short time that I do have to reflect on why it is that our actions here in Australia, and the condemnation of gross antisemitism that we witnessed on the steps of one of our greatest landmarks, matters. Generations of Jewish people have been subjected to the hateful prejudice of antisemitism. The grossest expression of antisemitism, the Holocaust, was a horror beyond comprehension. The fundamental dignity of the human person, irrespective of their faith, nationality, ethnicity and the context into which they are born transcends politics and all borders. It must remain central to our hearts and to our politics. It can never be forgotten. When the innate dignity of any human life is minimised, we risk descent into the darkest depths of what humans are capable of. We risk the same evil that enabled the murder of six million Jews. Road Vehicle Standards 38 13:59 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I want to take these last few moments to advise the chamber that I was very privileged at the end of September to be able to announce the Australian government's changes to the national Road Vehicle Standards to facilitate the supply of safer trucks in Australia to help reduce road trauma while bolstering road freight productivity. (Time expired) QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 38 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 38 14:00 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Australians were prepared to recognise Indigenous Australians, but Prime Minister Albanese instead insisted on attaching the Voice to Labor's proposed question. Why did your government refuse to separate the two, and deny Indigenous Australians recognition within the Constitution? 14:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank Senator Nampijinpa Price for her question. I want to start by acknowledging, first, that for many Australians, particularly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, the referendum result is disappointing and many feel a deep sense of loss. I want to make the point, in response to Senator Nampijinpa Price's question, that this was a request from Indigenous people. I appreciate you have a different view to those that were consulted—those who came together at Uluru in 2017 and issued the Uluru statement after a process that involved hundreds of meetings and thousands of people. This government promised that we would seek to implement that statement and we kept that promise. We respect and accept the decision of the Australian people and we all know how hard referenda are. Only eight out of 44 have succeeded, and all of those had bipartisan support. Regrettably, there was no bipartisan support in relation to this referendum. But this isn't the end of our efforts to bring people together. I think it's important to remember that, whilst Australians did vote against this constitutional change, Australians did not vote against closing the gap or reconciliation. I noticed that Senator Liddle made similar comments today or yesterday. The point of the referendum, as Senator Nampijinpa Price knows too well, is that was the request that came from Indigenous leaders and representatives from the Referendum Working Group and from the Uluru Statement from the Heart and what lay beneath it, which was a grassroots process. I accept that some have a different view, but I think it is very clear that this was a request to us. It was a request that the Prime Minister made a commitment to honour and he did. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Nampijinpa Price, your first supplementary? 14:02 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Voice, treaty, truth. The Prime Minister has proudly said he will deliver the Uluru statement in full, despite not having read it. Can you confirm reports in the Australian today that state that Mr Albanese will still pursue treaty through the federally funded makarrata commission? 14:03 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I can confirm what the Prime Minister said on Saturday night. He said: 'We will take the time to listen to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Our guiding principle will be what we can do together to get better results for Indigenous Australians.' I think, as I said, that is something that Australians do agree on. People had a different view about constitutional change, but I think there is overwhelming support for ending disadvantage and improving outcomes for our First Peoples. We will continue to listen to Indigenous Australians about what works and what can make a practical difference in communities. Obviously, the priorities that the government has are the priorities Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders have themselves spoken about—health, education, jobs and housing. We previously outlined our strategic priorities for closing the gap and committing additional investments, some $424 million. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Nampijinpa Price, your second supplementary? 14:04 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory I refer to the following explanation of treaty and truth by Pat Anderson to an MUA forum in November 2020: 'Treaty and truth go together because we have to have the bloodletting, if you like, before we can talk about any kind of settlement. Those two things go together. It's a little bit more than reconciliation. It's part of what I suspect will be a very painful exercise.' In light of Saturday's rejection of the Voice, will the government listen to the Australian people, who voted for unity and rejected bloodletting? Will you abandon Mr Albanese's plans for yet more division? (Time expired) 14:04 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia What this government seeks to do is to bring people together and to try and work together to address the gaps facing Indigenous Australians. That was the motivation behind the referendum—as I said, the ask of Indigenous leaders after a long and grassroots process. People are entitled to different views, and there are different views in this chamber. But I think people should also respect the views of the many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who were part of that consultation process which led to the Statement from the Heart. And, really, I think that is borne out by the results in the referendum in many areas, including remote communities with high Indigenous populations. Those tell us a lot about what Indigenous Australians want: Wadeye, 92 per cent support; Tiwi Islands, 84 per cent support; and Yuendumu and similar polling places, 75 per cent support— (Time expired) Israel 39 14:05 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Minister, could you please provide an update to the Senate on the current situation with respect to the Israel-Hamas conflict? 14:06 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank Senator Ciccone for his question and I acknowledge his deep interest—along with many others on this side of the chamber and, I think, across this parliament—in Middle East peace. As I have said many times since these awful events unfolded on Saturday, the attack by Hamas was a shocking assault on Israel and on the Jewish people. We unequivocally condemn these attacks. We understand how distressing they are for not only the Australian Jewish community but communities everywhere. We call for the immediate release of hostages. There is no justification for this attack. And we recognise Israel's right to defend itself and to re-establish its security. As I said earlier today, Hamas is a terrorist group that rules Gaza with no regard for the safety and security of the Palestinian people who live there. Hamas's actions have precipitated a devastating situation in Israel and Gaza, and civilians are suffering. Australia's principled position in all contexts is to call for the protection of civilian lives and the observance of international humanitarian law. Why do we do that? These are principles that protect everybody. This is why we have seen widespread calls across the international community for the protection of civilians. In response to the rapidly-deteriorating humanitarian situation in Gaza, Australia is providing an initial $10 million in humanitarian assistance, through trusted partners, for civilians affected by the conflict; for water, nutrition, sanitation and hygiene services; and to support medical treatment for the victims of the conflict. We also call for safe and unimpeded humanitarian access to Gaza and the rapid establishment of a humanitarian corridor. We want to ensure essential humanitarian relief can reach civilians. And, again, we commend the work of many in the international community towards this goal. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ciccone, a first supplementary? 14:08 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Thank you, Minister, for that answer. Minister, could you please outline the work of the Australian government to assist the many Australians that have been caught up in the Israel-Gaza conflict and what work DFAT has been doing? 14:08 Sena 00AOU South Australia tor WONG (—) (): Thank you, Senator Ciccone. The Australian government immediately began supporting Australians in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank after the initial attack. On Monday, I directed my department to assess all options for Australians wanting to leave. We secured commercial options for assisted departures and readied the ADF to assist, should commercial options no longer be viable. As of this morning, more than 1,200 Australians previously registered have left Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including more than 400 Australians and their families on four Australian government flights. I would like to ensure I make this information public: subject to factors, including the security environment, we are planning two additional flights to Dubai today, and we have secured flights for onward travel from London and Dubai. We continue to assist more than a thousand registered Australians and 39 consular cases. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister. Senator Ciccone, a second supplementary? 14:09 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Thank you again, Minister, for that answer. I'm sure many families will be welcoming those Aussies back home. What is the government's message for Australians who are rightly concerned about Hamas's terror attacks on Israel and the disturbing scenes that we witnessed at protests in Australia last week? 14:09 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Australians are distressed by what they have seen, what they are watching and what they have lost, and we know that this conflict has touched many Australians and is felt most acutely in our Jewish communities and our Palestinian communities. I would make this point: there is a long, complex and disputed history to this region. It is deeply felt. It is close to the hearts of many. It is why I have continued to urge all to express their views respectfully, as have the Prime Minister and other ministers in the government. We should be clear: there is no place for antisemitism in this country, there is no place for Islamophobia, there's no place for prejudice and there's no place for hatred of any kind. We must maintain mutual respect here at home, and politicians have a role in that: to speak and behave in a respectful way regardless of difference. (Time expired) Indigenous Australians 40 14:10 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator Gallagher. It has been reported in the media today that the government will pursue treaty and truth-telling despite the failure of the Voice referendum. At a time when the nation needs healing, the grave fear of many Australians is that a treaty process would lead to further division and come at the expense of better outcomes on the ground. Rather than more division or symbolism, will you accept the offer of bipartisanship and agree to an audit of all spending on Indigenous programs to ensure that the money spent at every level goes to where it is needed the most and practically helps to close the gap? 14:11 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Liddle for the question. I think all of us in this chamber always look for working together and reaching across party divides and political divides to find and reach agreement. That's been the position of the Prime Minister from the beginning, particularly in relation to the referendum that we just had. In relation to the question about an audit of programs—there were a number of areas that Senator Liddle went to—there was an audit by the ANAO that was just handed down in May this year, looking particularly at programs being run through the NIAA. I note seven recommendations, all of which the NIAA accepted. It covered a period of time when those opposite were in government, and it showed that there were a number of areas in relation to noncompliance and fraud prevention and things like that with respect to the programs that were funded and needed improvements, to which the NIAA has committed and which the Minister for Indigenous Australians will be seeing through. So there has been quite a significant piece of work done. I think the ANAO's reputation and expertise in this area mean they are the pre-eminent body to do that work. That work has been done, and we will make sure that those recommendations are implemented. Of course, we will continue to listen to and work with First Nations organisations as they roll out programs, because there is an agreement across the country that focusing on practical outcomes and improving outcomes for First Nations Australians are a priority. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Liddle, first supplementary? 14:13 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia While the Albanese Labor government was distracted by its failed referendum, the only practical policy action it took in Indigenous affairs was actually to abolish the cashless debit card and expose Indigenous communities, including women, children and old people, to further abuse, neglect and violence. How much worse are alcohol abuse, drug abuse, violence and assault getting in the communities where Labor abolished the cashless debit card? 14:14 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I don't accept the assertions that are being put forward in that question, and I completely reject the allegations of distraction. If those opposite were being genuine—and actually understood or watched what went on in the past year since we came to government—they would acknowledge that we inherited a number of programs in the First Nations portfolio that had no ongoing funding at all. We fixed all that. Not only did we fix that and address that but also we invested more money in areas that needed further investment. This has been led in partnership with states and territories, including the Northern Territory, to make sure we get the better outcomes that we are after. Importantly, we're working hand in hand with community organisations on the ground. We are listening to them about what works. That is what we are doing. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Liddle, second supplementary? 14:15 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia The Prime Minister has spent $450 million on his divisive, failed referendum but still refuses to spend $12 million on Yipirinya School in Alice Springs to provide urgently needed accommodation for at-risk Indigenous children to help close the gap. Will the Albanese government listen to the need for practical action, not symbolism, and support those at-risk children? 14:16 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Liddle for the supplementary. I don't accept the costings that she outlined in relation to the referendum. I point out that back in the day when it was bipartisan there was an allocation made in the budget by the former government—almost half of that, from memory, nearly in the order of $200 million—for constitutional recognition. In that fact, the funding we provided to the AEC— Senator GALLAGHER ING Thank you, Senator Farrell—was in the order of $386 million, and half was met from the allocation that had been left by Senator Birmingham when he was finance minister. We will continue to listen and we will continue to work hand in hand with First Nations organisations on the ground on the support and investment that they need. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Liddle? Senator Liddle 300644 The question was actually about Yipirinya School, and there hasn't been any mention of Yipirinya School. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Liddle, I remind you that there was also a statement about the dollars spent in the referendum. The minister has answered that part of the question, as she is entitled to. It wasn't a direct question on the school. There was a preamble there, and the minister is being relevant. Senator GALLAGHER ING In relation to that, I understand an unsolicited proposal has been provided to the NIAA and it is under consideration. (Time expired) First Nations Australians: Cultural Heritage 41 14:17 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I rise to ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, Minister Wong. The government committed to federal Aboriginal cultural heritage legislation in the wake of the tragic disaster at Juukan Gorge. Recently, in my home state of Western Australia, Rio Tinto damaged another cave at Nammuldi. My question to the minister is: when can we expect to see an exposure draft of this bill? 14:18 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Cox. I first say that all of us—well, I hope all of us—remain appalled by what occurred at Juukan Gorge. Obviously there has been quite a lot on in politics and policy over some time, but I did see reporting of a further problem in terms of activities by Rio Tinto. The advice I have is that the government is continuing to work on reforms. When we first responded to the Juukan Gorge inquiries we committed to reforming national heritage protection laws in partnership with the First Nations Heritage Protection Alliance, which is a group that was established after Juukan and that is made up of over 30 First Nations groups. Obviously it's very important that this is done right. The process is underway. I hope that there is, as I'm advised, really thorough and thoughtful consultation, because there should be. The process is in the early stages. The government will also be consulting with business, farmers, environment groups and many others as we go. The minister has indicated that she is also concerned that the Wintawari Guruma Aboriginal Corporation have said that a rock shelter at Mount Tom Price mine is now in a fragile state. I am advised that the minister has written to Rio Tinto about comments made by traditional owners about Rio Tinto's blast management procedures and has asked the corporation to address their concerns. There is no federal government application for emergency protection of the site. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cox, first supplementary? 14:20 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia It's important that this bill has broad support to ensure its ongoing success. Can the minister outline what stakeholders the government has been consulting with in the process of developing this bill? 14:20 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia First, the list I have includes, as I have said, the First Nations Heritage Protection Alliance, which I am advised is made up of over 30 First Nations groups. There is also a commitment to consult with business, farmers, environment groups and many others. The senator raised the issue of the importance of broad support. It is unfortunate—and we've seen some of it in this chamber—that there are some who would rather have a divisive, angry debate over this than try and work as the parliament was able to in the context of the parliamentary inquiry chaired by Warren Entsch. I think we've seen the politics played on this issue. I would hope that people could come together and actually work out how we protect this heritage. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cox, second supplementary? 14:21 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia In the co-design process, will the government guarantee that free, prior and informed consent from traditional owners will be a key feature in this legislation to protect and preserve First Nations cultural heritage that is both tangible and intangible? 14:21 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I think it's always unwise to pre-empt a consultation process. I will ensure I take advice about what is the most precise answer to your direct question, but I would make the point that the minister has made clear her intention to ensure a proper consultation process with First Nations representatives through the First Nations Heritage Protection Alliance. I have no doubt that the nature of consent—what that constitutes, what is required for informed consent—will be important to that. I am sure that that will be a focus of these consultations, because it's obviously an issue that is of great importance to community. (Time expired) Early Childhood Education 42 14:22 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Senator Watt. We know that quality early childhood education and care can transform a child's life, yet the ACCC has found that, under the former government, early childhood education and care costs went up by twice as much as the OECD average between 2018 and 2022. With cost-of-living pressures front of mind for many Australians, what action is the Albanese government taking to ensure early childhood education and care is more affordable for Australian children and their families now? Opposition senators interjecting— 14:23 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'm surprised that opposition members don't want to hear about cost-of-living relief for Australian families, but I guess they have voted against every other form of cost-of-living relief we've provided. I guess they've kept on voting against cost-of-living relief. But, unlike the opposition, Senator O'Neill and our colleagues are concerned about cost-of-living relief. It's an amazing statistic, isn't it, Senator O'Neill, that, under the former government, childcare costs went up by twice as much as the OECD average between 2018 and 2022? The Albanese government knows very well that Australian families are facing cost-of-living pressures across the board, whether that's in housing, energy, health care or child care. That's why, for our entire time in office, we've been delivering genuine cost-of-living relief, unfortunately so often opposed by those opposite. As Minister Gallagher has previously said, the Albanese government is rolling out measures to reduce the impact of cost-of-living increases, particularly when it comes to making early childhood education more affordable. The simple fact is that, under the previous government, early childhood education fees increased by around 49 per cent. These steep increases, overseen by the coalition, only served as a barrier for families to find places for their kids in centres. By contrast, the Albanese government know that our more affordable early learning plan is not just a social reform; it is an integral economic reform—one that is driving increased workforce participation, particularly for women, and enabling skilled workers to return to the workforce. More affordable early childhood education and care means that more Australian children can access the transformational health and education benefits of foundation-years learning, no matter what their postcode or background is. More affordable early childhood education and care is a win-win for Australian families, delivering cost-of-living relief while also making it easier to increase household income. The government is taking the next steps in building the world-class, affordable early childhood education system that Australian parents expect and Australian kids deserve. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Neill, your first supplementary? 14:25 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Around 1.2 million Australian families right across Australia are now eligible for the government's increased childcare subsidy. What benefit is the new subsidy rate delivering to the household budget of 1.2 million Australian families? 14:26 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you again, Senator O'Neill. I'm pleased to say that the government's cheaper childcare reforms are delivering real cost-of-living relief to Australian families right now. In the first week of our landmark reforms, families paid 14 per cent less per hour per child for centre based day care as a result of the Albanese government's changes. And, thanks to the increased childcare subsidy, a family earning $120,000 with one child in care can expect to save about $2,000 in early childhood education and care costs this financial year. Senator WATT 245759 I take the interjection. It does make a real difference to families' costs, Senator O'Neill. That's what the Albanese government is about—helping people with these costs. Apart from the mortgage or the rent, early childhood education and care is one of the biggest bills that a lot of families pay, and we are making it cheaper. This means more children can access more of the health and education benefits achieved by access to quality early childhood education and care and more cost-of-living relief. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Neill, your second supplementary? 14:27 Senat 140651 New South Wales or O'NEILL () (): Thank you, Minister, for that response regarding the reality of 1.2 million Australian families. Thanks to the increased subsidy, parents now have more choice when it comes to taking on more hours of paid work or taking on study. What's the government doing to ensure we have a sustainable early childhood education workforce to support those Australian families? 14:27 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland It's not just cost that has proven a barrier for Australian families looking to find a placement for their child. Ensuring that there were enough workers to look after your child was also a struggle under the previous government. But, since we took office in May 2022, Australia's early childhood education and care sector has grown by more than 14,000 workers, with a further 123,000 additional educators and teachers in the training pipeline. The Albanese government are not only making early childhood education and care cheaper for families; we're actually delivering the workforce that the former government failed to deliver. The government's successful fee-free TAFE program is helping encourage people into the sector, with the Certificate III in Early Childhood Education and Care being the most popular fee-free TAFE course. At the same time, the government's early childhood education workforce package is helping to retain the existing, highly skilled early learning workforce. We're delivering childcare relief and also the workforce— (Time expired) Ms Cheng Lei 43 14:28 Senator 266524 Queensland ROBERTS () (): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. It's based on a constituent's inquiry. Australian journalist Cheng Lei was convicted in China of illegally providing state secrets to overseas parties and imprisoned. Cheng Lei was recently released and arrived back in Australia last week. Minister, can you inform the Senate what role you had personally, your department had and the Prime Minister had in the release of Cheng Lei? 14:29 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank the senator for his question. Obviously, as you would expect, this is an issue on which there has been a lot of discussion at various levels with the Chinese authorities, urging the return of Ms Cheng and urging her to be able to return to Australia. I can indicate to you—and obviously some of this is at officer level—that, as I said publicly at the time, this was my first engagement with the then foreign minister Wang Yi, when I first met him at the first bilateral discussion in Bali. It is the practice of Australian governments to ensure that we raise consular cases with other countries, China included, at all appropriate meetings. I can indicate to the senator that Ms Cheng Lei was the subject of representations from me, the Prime Minister and officers, just as with other consular cases such as Dr Yang's and with those obviously facing criminal charges. We made those representations at the Prime Minister level, at the foreign minister level and at officer level, and we will continue to do so. I would acknowledge also that this has been the practice under successive governments. I spoke to former senator Payne after I had met Ms Cheng Lei at the airport to let her know before the news became public. I acknowledge that she also raised this with the Chinese authorities— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 14:31 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The Chinese ministry of state has posted on Weibo that Cheng Lei had been sentenced to two years and 11 months in prison and had been deported after completing her sentence. Minister, your words on Cheng Lei's arrival at the airport, as quoted in the Guardian, made it clear that the government was taking credit for her release. They quoted you as saying: I made them a promise some time ago we would do everything, I would do everything I could, to bring her home … Minister, who is telling the truth—you or the Chinese government? 14:31 Se 00AOU South Australia nator WONG (—) (): Senator, you and I have differences of opinion, but I regret that you would use something I said about what I said to her children in that way. An opposition senator: Seriously? Senator WONG 00AOU No—not 'seriously'. It was an expression of hope, emotion and a degree of humanity, because, like all Australians, I wanted to see a mother return to her children. That was also what I said publicly. The Chinese legal system has been completed. We have seen what they have said—that is, the articulation of the Chinese legal position. What I can say is that we made a priority to make representations— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 14:32 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Minister, is this a case that proves the Albanese government's misinformation and disinformation bill should not exclude 'government misinformation and disinformation' and instead should include 'government misinformation and disinformation'? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, I'm not sure how it relates, but I'm sure the minister will respond as she sees fit. 14:33 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator Roberts, there is no misinformation on our side. There is no disinformation on our side. What we have said—and if you had actually tracked every engagement I have had with the Chinese authorities, what I have said afterwards when I have articulated, at least in summary version, what I said to the Chinese authorities and what the Prime Minister said to his counterparts—you would know that we have made these representations. All I can say is this: this is not a partisan issue, and this is not a political issue. This is an issue about an Australian who is now home with her children. Behind her were many Australians across this country and across the political divide who made the same representations to Chinese authorities at all levels that Australians wanted to see a mother united with her children. I think that is a good thing. It was a great privilege to have the opportunity— (Time expired) Cost Of Living 44 14:34 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania My question is to the minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. In the lead-up to the last election the then opposition leader, Mr Albanese, stated: 'Instead of doing photo ops, the Prime Minister should focus on reducing the cost of living' and: 'Australians are being hit with a triple whammy of skyrocketing essentials. They deserve a government with a plan to ease the cost of living.' Minister, how much worse off have Australians become as a result of Mr Albanese overseeing skyrocketing prices of essential goods with no government plans to ease cost-of-living pressures, but plenty of T-shirt-wearing photo ops? 14:35 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory What we've learned and what we've seen on national display over the past month has been a Prime Minister who delivers on his promises to the Australian people and the commitments that he made in the lead-up to the election, the commitments he delivers on in government. In relation to the cost of living, I do find it interesting when the opposition asks us questions about what we have done on cost of living when, without exception I think, they have opposed every single measure that we have sought. So this, again, signifies the approach the opposition takes on everything: no solutions, no plans, no ideas, just blockers. They want to block and criticise, but they have no plans of their own. Energy bill relief, remember that? They voted no to that. Cheaper child care, increased rent assistance, Medicare bulk-billing, cheaper medicines, boost in income support payments, fee-free TAFE, building more affordable homes—the Housing Australia Future Fund— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Before I go to Senator Duniam, I am going to remind all senators across the chamber that those interjections are disorderly. Senator Duniam? Senator Duniam 263418 A point of order on direct relevance, President. I asked how much worse off Australians are, not the voting record in this place. The PRESIDENT 112096 There were a few significant sentences before that about the Prime Minister. You talked about plans and other things. The minister is being relevant, but I will continue to listen closely. Senator GALLAGHER ING I mean, my argument that I'm putting, President, is that Australians are being supported by this government with the investments we're making to deal with cost-of-living pressures without adding to inflation, which those opposite blocked. Whilst we have within doing all that, and I think since the last time we met, remember we have actually delivered the first budget surplus in 15 years. Remember that? So we're fixing the mess, making the investments, despite your opposition to it. Your opposition does make it harder because we have to make sure we get the numbers to pass the legislation to allow that support to flow. But that's exactly what we're doing. It's what the Prime Minister does every single day. Yes, he worked to support a referendum and he worked hard to support that. He said he would and he did that. At the same time in every single day he was doing that, he was working on addressing cost-of-living pressures for all Australians and you can see that— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam, a first supplementary question? 14:37 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Mr Albanese promised to deliver a plan to ease the cost of living, yet Australian families are being hit with skyrocketing fuel prices, increasingly unaffordable groceries and interest rates stuck at the highest rates in 12 years. Will Mr Albanese apologise for making things worse since Labor took power? 14:38 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory What the Prime Minister and the government does is recognise that there has been a war in Ukraine, in case you hadn't noticed, that has an effect on inflation; that the worst quarter of inflation was actually in the quarter you departed government and we came in— Hono urable senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING I'm just putting the facts there. You can accept the facts there. That's the economic environment we inherited. Every single day since then we have been working to make sure we put downward pressure on inflation, recognising that families are doing it tough, recognising that Australians are doing it tough and looking at those areas where we can make a difference. Whether it be child care, whether it be cheaper medicines, whether it be energy bill relief, whether it be getting the Housing Australia Future Fund up so we can start reinvesting in social housing after the Commonwealth left it and abandoned it for the last decade—that's what we have been doing and it's what we'll continue to do. The PRE 112096 Senator Duniam, a second supplementary? 14:39 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania In March last year the minister said, 'The only way to deal with the cost of living is to change the government.' Minister, with Australians struggling from the worst and most crippling cost-of-living pressures seen in decades, isn't it now a fact that the change to Labor has been an expensive failure for every Australian household? 14:39 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory From those that opposed almost every single measure that goes to supporting households, it might work into your narrative—your no-solutions, blocking narrative—but, every single thing that we have taken to this chamber to make a difference and to ease pressures on households, you have complained about, argued against and then voted against. That's what you have done. We are assisting families with child care. We are making medicines cheaper. We are ensuring that people get relief on their energy bills. These are all things that make a difference to people's households and how they manage their budgets day to day. I think the Australian people recognise they have a government that doesn't want to just have the photo ops that your government was so famous for—you couldn't get in the way of Mr Morrison and a camera—and that actually delivers on the change this country needs, including in the area of energy and climate change, which was so needlessly abandoned in the previous decade. (Time expired) Environmental Conservation 45 14:40 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Wong. Currently, the environment minister is not required to consider the impacts of all significant gas developments on critical water resources. This is a failure of our environment laws. Fracking developments, like the Beetaloo basin in the Northern Territory, damage groundwater systems without any regard for our rivers, drinking water or the voices of traditional owners. The Albanese government previously committed to fixing this by expanding the water trigger under the EPBC Act by the end of this year. How will the government keep this promise and make sure this amendment is done before we leave here in December? 14:41 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I do recall that there was a lot of discussion about the water trigger during one part of the campaign. I am advised that the Labor government's new environmental laws will include an expanded water trigger to cover all forms of non-conventional gas, including shale gas. Consultation on draft laws begins this month. We would welcome support across party lines. That might be more hopeful than realistic, but obviously these things are always better if they can be resolved with at least some cross-party support. In the meantime, the government has made available our Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development to assist in assessing the impact of gas projects seeking their approval. This is the same committee that will assess water impacts of projects when the water trigger is legislated. Senator Hanson-Young, I think there were two parts to you question. I've partly answered them. You asked when. My advice obviously indicates it's still in the process of being consulted. You asked how we would ensure that this occurs by the end of the year. In part, that is in the hands of those in this chamber. Senator Duniam 263418 You've got to introduce the laws first. Senator WONG 00AOU Well, that's true. I accept that, but I would make the point that, while we sometimes have cooperation on passage, I think those opposite have demonstrated that that's not how they wish to operate in this chamber, so— Senator Duniam 263418 If the minister picked up the phone to me it would be a bit easier. Senator WONG 00AOU I would make the point: I think there was a fair bit of cooperation previously, but clearly they're not in a cooperative mood. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson-Young, first supplementary question? 14:43 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Clearly the rest of the EPBC reforms will not be done by the end of this year. I've recently written to the environment minister, offering the Greens' support to pass the water trigger by December. I urge you to ask the environment minister whether she will take up this offer. 14:44 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you for writing to the environment minister, Senator Hanson-Young— Senator Birmingham H6X Correspondence is noted. Senator WONG 00AOU No. I wasn't going to say that, but thank you for the suggestion, Senator Birmingham. I'm sure that the environment minister will respond to you in due course. As I understand the history of this, obviously we did have the Samuel review, which was very clear that the EPBC Act is ineffective and that good outcomes for the environment cannot be achieved under these laws.As I said in my earlier answer to your primary question, the government will soon begin consultation on the detail of new environmental laws. I am advised—my brief says—that's two months ahead of schedule. That doesn't quite accord with your primary question, so I will just put that that is what I am advised. I also understand that more than 30 groups will be able to— (Time expired) The PRESIDEN 112096 Senator Hanson-Young, second supplementary? 14:45 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia The consultation that the minister refers to is for a select few. The government has actually dumped public consultation and release of the reform package. Why? When will the public see the entire reform package for themselves? 14:45 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia It's not uncommon to have a representative group, or groups, of experts with different perspectives to look at draft legislation before government comes to the point of actually consulting on detailed legislation. That's not an uncommon process, Senator Hanson-Young, so I would push back on your suggestion that we dumped a process. Having taken some legislation through this parliament previously, I'd say that it is not an unusual process to try and have a smaller group—in this case, experts from more than 30 groups, including environment, business and industry—who are able to carefully examine the detail to make sure the laws are as effective as possible. This is a very complex piece of legislation. It's been added to over time. It's obviously been in place for some time. There will be different views, and I'm sure there will be the capacity for the community to see it before it's in the parliament. (Time expired) Cost of Living 46 14:46 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Finance and Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Since the election, the Albanese government has been working to deliver policies that will ease cost-of-living pressures on Australians. Can the minister update the Senate on the steps the government is taking to support Australians who are still feeling the pressure on household budgets? 14:47 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Walsh for the question. As I said in my answer to Senator Duniam, and I repeat, the Albanese government's No. 1 priority remains addressing the inflation and cost-of-living challenge that we are seeing across the economy. We have a very well calibrated plan that doesn't make the inflation challenge worse but materially supports families and households across Australia who are feeling the pinch of higher prices. It's a plan that we've been working on since we took office in May last year—and, indeed, before, with the election commitments that we took to the Australian people. That plan includes energy bill relief; the cheaper child care that my colleague Minister Watt outlined; the commitments we have included in our budget, including increased rent assistance; tripling the Medicare bulk-billing rate; the decisions we've taken around cheaper medicines and boosting income support payments, particularly for those relying totally on those income payments, like JobSeeker and supporting parents payment; fee-free TAFE training; building more affordable homes; expanding paid parental leave to give families more choice; and getting wages moving again. These are all elements of our plan to make sure we can deal with the inflation challenge and provide essential cost-of-living support whilst families and households across Australia need it. We've done this at the same time as we've delivered the first budget surplus in 15 years. We've seen wages grow at the fastest rate in a decade and we've seen over 550,000 jobs created since we came to government, a record for any new government ever. What have we seen from those opposite? They said no to energy bill relief. They said no to the Housing Australia Future Fund. They said no to halving the cost of medicines. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walsh, first supplementary? 14:49 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Thank you, Minister. Minister, what are some of the causes, including international circumstances, that are contributing to the sustained cost-of-living pressures being felt across Australia? 14:49 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Walsh for the supplementary. Inflation and interest rates, as we know, were on the rise before we came to government last year. The war in Ukraine certainly caused havoc for energy prices around the world and here at home; the recent tensions in the Middle East have added to the uncertainty on global oil markets; and global supply constraints are causing higher fuel prices here at home. So we do acknowledge that, and our plan—which I just outlined in answer to the previous question—to provide relief where we can without adding to the inflation problem is a key response to that. At the same time, we have been repairing the budget, so we're creating more room to provide support where we can and also to allow for space for those competing pressures on the budget, which are increasing, not decreasing. I note that that budget repair has been recognised by the IMF recently— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walsh, second supplementary? 14:50 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Inflation is moderating, but Australians in many towns and cities around the country are still feeling the cost-of-living pinch. This pressure will continue to be felt in the lead-up to Christmas. What can Australians expect in the coming months to build on the support that has already been delivered to provide targeted cost-of-living relief? 14:51 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Walsh for the question. Inflation is moderating, and we welcome that, but we know that it will remain higher than we'd like for longer than we'd like. We monitor these pressures closely, and our plan is aimed at delivering that cost-of-living relief without adding to the inflation challenge. Those measures include the electricity bill relief, cheaper child care, increased rent assistance and the Medicare bulk-billing initiative, all of which we've been rolling out since budget day; the cheaper medicines; and the boosting of income support payments. In particular, on 20 September—so since we last met—there has been that important increase to payments, so JobSeeker payment recipients will now receive a base payment of $749.20 per fortnight, a $56 increase, and parenting payment (single) recipients will receive an extra $227.50 per fortnight compared to their current rate. No doubt these increases will support those households doing it tough right now. Energy 47 14:52 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Before the last election, the Prime Minister stated emphatically: I don't think, I know that Labor's Powering Australia plan will cut power prices … And Labor promised a $275 cut not once but on 97 occasions. However, recent figures released by the Australian Energy Market Operator reveal that energy bills have risen by over 20 per cent in the past 12 months, with a record number of households and businesses claiming hardship assistance. Was the Prime Minister lying or just reckless when he solemnly pledged to cut power prices for Australian households? The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Hughes. I just remind people about the use of that terminology, and I just ask you, if it's in further questions, to use different language. 14:53 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Thank you very much for the question. I would like to begin the answer by acknowledging, and reminding people of, the energy crisis that we inherited on coming into government. In fact, I remember Minister Bowen having to leave the swearing-in ceremony at Government House to make sure that the lights stayed on across the country because of the mess that we inherited from those opposite who, remember, hid the power price increase. They hid the advice that they received about the increase in electricity prices before the election. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Order! Minister Gallagher, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING The former minister hid the increases in energy prices before the election, because he didn't want that to come out. But, when what we had inherited became clear, we started, on day one, going around and fixing the mess that we inherited, including by delivering on our commitments that were included in the Powering Australia plan, which Senator Hughes outlined in her question. So, yes, we are delivering on that, but we are also dealing with what we inherited with the war in Ukraine and the mess that we inherited from those opposite. The modelling that was done in the Powering Australia plan was done in 2019 to reflect the situation in 2025—from memory. We are dealing with right here, right now, with the circumstances that we inherited. The reality is that renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy and that, if you put more investment and get more renewable energy into the grid, it will moderate the increases in electricity prices. That is a fact, and that is accepted by everybody except those opposite in this place, which is exactly why we inherited the mess we did when we came to government, because you had your head in the sand for a decade. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hughes, first supplementary? 14:55 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales According to evidence given at the Senate's cost-of-living inquiry, EnergyAustralia is now dealing with three times the number of inquiries concerning energy bill relief that it had during the pandemic, while 45,000 customers are now accessing the company's hardship program. Why has the Prime Minister been so distracted by dividing the country that he's allowing this cost-of-living crisis to cause so much hurt to Australian families? 14:55 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Again, I can't take a question seriously from a party that opposed the energy bill relief plan. That is the money that was supported by this parliament to ensure that we could take some of the pressure off those bills. That is the single purpose of one of those questions that was put to this chamber. And you voted against it. How can you vote against households getting hundreds of dollars of relief off their winter bills and then complain about increasing costs when you voted against them getting any help? It doesn't make any sense. Australians realise that they've got a government that acknowledges that prices are high in a range of areas. We are dealing with it with our 10-point plan that goes to a number of areas to support households and families who are doing it tough. Energy bills is one of those areas, and you voted against it. (Time expired) The 112096 Senator Hughes, second supplementary? 14:56 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales In evidence given to the Senate's cost-of-living inquiry, Origin Australia revealed that 71,000 residential customers are now on the company's hardship program—an increase of 22 per cent compared to last year. Will Labor accept responsibility— Senator Watt 245759 They'd be the people we tried to help. Senator HUGHES 273828 Sorry, I can't hear myself think over Minister Watt there. Will Labor accept responsibility for the electricity price increases happening under its watch and apologise for breaking its election promise— The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator. The time for asking the question has expired. 14:57 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory We'll take responsibility for the energy bill relief we successfully got through this parliament. We'll take responsibility for the cheaper childcare package. We'll take responsibility for the rent assistance, for tripling the Medicare bulk-billing rate, for making medicines cheaper, for boosting income support payments, for the fee-free TAFE program—remember, another sector that you ignored, the VET sector—for building more homes, for expanding paid parental leave and for getting wages moving again. That is what we will take responsibility for. Workplace Relations 48 14:58 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and fellow senator for Queensland, Senator Watt. What is the government doing to create a level playing field in workplace relations to give workers a fair go? 14:58 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Green, who, like so many people on this side of the chamber, spent much of her working life before coming here working for the interests of working people—something that I know is a foreign concept for those opposite. As we know, a key component in addressing the real cost-of-living pressure that many Australians are facing is increasing wages, and, finally, we are moving on from a decade of a government that deliberately held down wages. Last month, the ABS labour force data showed that the number of Australians in work— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash! Senator WATT 245759 has never been higher than it is under the Albanese Labor government. I'm not surprised that Senator Cash is interjecting, because she was one of the ministers for industrial relations that tried to keep wages down. I would be embarrassed about that as well. More than half a million jobs have been created since this government came to office— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, I've called you a number of times. Senator WATT 245759 the most for any new government on record. After a decade of low wages being a deliberate design feature from people like Senator Cash, the Albanese government is ensuring that every single one of those workers is being paid accordingly. Thanks to long-overdue reforms, wages are finally moving again under the Albanese government. Employers are back at the bargaining table, thanks to last year's secure jobs, better pay reforms. However, loopholes still remain within the Fair Work Act that undermine worker pay and conditions—again, loopholes that existed under legislation we inherited from Senator Cash and the opposition. The first loophole is that, if a worker steals from an employer, it is a crime, as it should be; however, if an employer quite deliberately steals from their worker, in most places in Australia it is not a crime. The Albanese government is closing this loophole by criminalising wage theft. The second loophole was the idea of the forced permanent casual worker. We're standing up for casual workers by giving those who are working like they are permanent a chance to convert to permanent employment. We'll see how much the opposition cares about workers and cost of living when it comes to a vote. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, the time for answering has expired. Senator Green, a first supplementary? 15:00 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Minister, thank you for that update. What impact do these existing loopholes in the workplace relations system have on workers' wages and their job security? 15:00 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you Senator Green. Unfortunately, these loopholes that we have inherited from 10 years of coalition government disproportionately affect vulnerable workers like women, young people and migrants. We need a strong new deterrent to ensure workers get the pay they are entitled to. That's why we're acting on wage theft—something the former coalition government didn't do in the 10 years that they were in office. Some casuals work just like permanent employees, but they don't get any of the benefits of job security under the laws we inherited from the coalition government. Closing this loophole will give more than 850,000 casual workers who are working in an ongoing way the option to request permanency if they want it. No-one will be forced to convert from casual to permanent if they don't want to. Labour hire loopholes undermine the integrity of the enterprise bargaining system. Closing this loophole—something the coalition didn't do in the 10 years they were in office—will affect only a small number of workers. But, for the workers this affects, closing this loophole will be life changing. There will be more that we do because we're serious about getting wages moving again. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, the time for answering has expired. Senator Green, a second supplementary? 15:01 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Minister, there is a lot to say over there on that side of the chamber. So, Minister, could you let us know what the opposition's legacy was in closing these loopholes that have continued to undermine workers' pay and conditions? 15:02 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Green. Of course, under the former coalition government, there was always a new excuse for why they couldn't deliver a wage increase for workers—'Just wait for low unemployment; if unemployment comes down then wages will go up.' That's what they said. But, of course, unemployment came down and wages were still held down by the coalition government. Then they moved on—'Just wait for productivity increases,' they said. But, of course, they never came under the former coalition government either. The Leader of the Opposition can stand on shop floors and worksites in outer suburban areas and make all the claims that he wants about being for the battler, but workers know that the Liberals and Nationals are not on their side and never have been on their side. They have only ever been on the side of holding back workers' wages. The coalition said no to Secure Jobs, Better Pay, before they even read the bill. Why did they say no to that? They didn't like the name of the bill, Secure Jobs, Better Pay—'Oh, we better vote no against that straightaway.' But what has occurred since that bill has been passed? Stronger jobs growth and higher wages. We're acting; you're opposing. (Time expired) Senator Wong 00AOU President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 50 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers To Questions 50 15:03 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked today. I rise to take note of answers given by government ministers to questions asked by all coalition senators in question time today. In framing my remarks on this debate this afternoon, I will touch on each of the issues raised in the questions that were asked, and they are important issues. I'd like to start with the one that I am hearing about consistently from my own constituents back in Tasmania, and that is the cost of living. We know that cost-of-living pressures are still having a profound impact on household budgets as Australian families continue to grapple with the high cost of everyday goods and services. This is what my constituents have been speaking to me about consistently over the last 18 months or so. We know that Australians are still feeling the pressure every time they pass through the supermarket check-out or fill up at the local petrol station. Coupled with rising mortgage rates and increasing power prices, this means Australian families have been forced to make tough decisions when it comes to the household budget, with many making immense sacrifices in an attempt to weather the financial storm. Throughout the election campaign, Labor told Australians that the cost of living would go down under them, that they would fix the cost-of-living crisis. They said that, if they were elected, Australians could expect to see power bills go down by $275. They didn't just make these promises a couple of times off the cuff during an election campaign; they made them time and time again over several weeks. It's amazing how quickly this government's tone has changed since they won the election and took office. The Prime Minister and this government have failed to deliver any meaningful relief for Australian households and families since the last election, and I think they know it. Over the last 16 months, the Prime Minister has blatantly ignored the difficult cost-of-living pressures facing Australian families and has chosen instead to focus his attention and his government's attention on the divisive Voice referendum. It was plain for everyone to see that the Prime Minister enjoyed the opportunity to mix with high-profile CEOs from big corporates and take photos alongside various celebrities to push his Voice referendum. Just to add insult to injury, this government spent 400 million taxpayer dollars on the divisive and unnecessary referendum that was held this past weekend. Make no mistake: all Australians want to see Indigenous disadvantage addressed. I don't think there's any question about that. But Labor's divisive Voice was not the solution to that problem. Instead, the Voice referendum became a distraction for the government from the core issues affecting Australian families, like the cost of living. Quite frankly, with the referendum now completed and just a few more votes left to count—and the result is known—the government need to get on with it and actually deliver on what they promised Australians. As I said, under Labor the cost of living has gone up, when they said that it would go down. They have failed to address the cost-of-living crisis facing Australians and have broken their promise to Australians that addressing the cost of living would be their priority. They still don't want to take responsibility for their failure. We heard about it in question time today. They've complained about the challenges of the economy and blamed the war in Ukraine instead of working on tangible solutions to actually alleviate cost-of-living pressures being felt by Australians. As I said in my initial remarks, this is the No. 1 issue affecting Australians. It is the No. 1 issue being raised with me by my fellow Tasmanians. Fuel prices continue to climb. People are spending more and receiving less when they pass through the supermarket check-outs. Insurance premiums are going up. Australians are paying more on their mortgage repayments. They are facing extremely difficult economic circumstances and, frankly, I think many feel abandoned by this government, because it was this government that promised to reduce the cost of living for Australians. This government has broken that promise to Australians. Quite frankly, Australians deserve more from their federal government. 15:09 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I did want to talk a little bit about the Voice, but I can't listen to Senator Chandler read from a script and make statements that have absolutely no body to them and let her get away unchallenged. This is for the people up there in the gallery too. Senator Chandler unintelligently and, quite frankly, uneducatedly referred to the so-called war between Russia and Ukraine as if it were just some passing thing. I don't know what that lot over there do during the off times when they're not here. Quite frankly, I don't care. I know what I do. I talk to truck drivers around this nation day in, day out. I talk to small, medium and large trucking companies day in, day out. I talk to companies which have 30,000 employees and I talk to owner-drivers. The war between Russia and Ukraine, Senator Chandler, has put up the cost of fuel. I don't know quite what all the machinations are, but about six months before the war—when you mob were still in government—diesel was sitting at around $1.50 a litre. How do I know that? Because I spent a lot of time fuelling trucks because I drive them for charity. I come from a trucking background. I'm not like most of you who went through university and say, 'In the playground I had a premonition one day that I wanted to be a senator or a member of parliament.' I actually came here with dirt under my fingernails. And I continue in the great cause of driving road trains from Perth to Kununurra and places in-between to raise money for charity. I know the cost of diesel, Senator Chandler, from pulling my mate's truck up at a bowser in Port Hedland or in Kununurra and looking at the price, and it's now $2.50 a litre in the Kimberley. Yet you make a throwaway line about the so-called war between Russia and Ukraine so-called pushing up the cost. Senator Chandler, you might not know, but it's pushing up the cost of transport because truckies have to actually cover their costs when they deliver the goods that you and me and the rest of us in this building rely upon. Senator STERLE e68 Here we go again, Senator Chandler. I'm sorry that you came through university with the premonition that one day you might be the Leader of the Opposition or the Leader of the Liberal Party in the Senate. I come from the real world. Someone has to pay for those costs. Senator Chandler 264449 What are you doing about it, Glenn? Senator STERLE e68 I don't sit over there, with a big pearl necklace on, talking about how unfair it is and how hard done by— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Hughes? Senator Hughes 273828 I raise a point of order. That was a direct imputation that had an alternative meaning, and I would ask Senator Sterle to withdraw. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 No, I don't think it did. Senator Sterle, could you please withdraw that? Senator STERLE e68 Absolutely. For you, Deputy President, always. As I said, these trucking companies have to pay for the cost of fuel. When people go to shopping centres or hairdressers or shoe shops or wherever they may go, every single thing on those shelves has been on the back of a truck—not once, not twice, not three times. The clothes you're wearing have probably been on the back of a truck seven or eight times. Think about that. Think about where the cotton came from. Think about the fertiliser, the machinery and the fuel that's had to go out to the farms. How did it get there for you, Senator Hughes? It didn't just get flown over in a big, magic air balloon. It was actually on the back of the truck. When the cotton seeds are cultivated or the cotton is tumbled—guess what?—it ends up on the back of a truck and it goes off to market or wherever it may go. It may then leave the market to go to a warehouse or a factory on another truck. Then, once it's spun into a shirt or a coat or a pair of socks or whatever you may purchase—oh, my goodness me—it goes on a truck to a distribution centre of Coles or Woolworths or Aldi or wherever it may be. Guess what? It then gets shipped from the distribution centre on the back of a truck, not on a pigeon or a balloon. I hope you can understand that. It then goes to the shopping centre where you've driven and purchased it. There have probably been about eight truck trips. Senator STERLE e68 You can shake your head as much as you like. The truth is that you're arrogant and ignorant about the way this nation operates and you're arrogant and ignorant about our supply chains. You have no idea. In the universities of New South Wales and Hobart, or wherever you cut your teeth, they don't talk about real-world issues. It's all gossip and innuendo and who's going to do over who to get a frontbench position. Sorry, people, I'm still in the real world. You make a throwaway comment like that, Senator Chandler, so I hope I've helped explain to you that the cost of living affects our trucking industry. Someone has to pay for it, unfortunately. Let's talk about Woolworths and Coles. Woolworths and Coles are having a ball. They're getting their money back. Don't worry about the cost. They put up their prices, and it's hitting all of us in our back pockets. These are the same companies, with the help of you lot over there, who want to suppress the closing the loopholes legislation, which will lead to the opportunity for the Australian truck industry to actually get paid what it costs for them to do business. I hope I helped you out. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Thank you, Senator Sterle. Senator Cadell. 15:14 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales What a rousing defence of the workers from Senator Sterle. Let's face it, he has to do it here because in his party room they don't listen anymore. Over there they've become the party of the entitled and the party of the unburdened. We saw that in the vote on the weekend, and here with questions about the Voice and the cost of living. We have seen very clear voting patterns. As to those directly affected, Indigenous people, I will grant that Indigenous people voted mainly in favour of the Voice—not at 80 per cent, but they did. I won't play games with that. We also saw the young, who are unburdened; they're studying; they're not paying their mortgages. And we saw the very, very rich, in the cities—the entitled; those with six- and seven-figure bank balances, to whom interest rates going up is a great thing. Under this government, they're just getting richer. If you've got a million bucks in the bank, you'll be $50,000 a year better off, thanks to the interest rates here. Those people think that spending cutbacks and cost-of living pressures, as I said, mean buying a South African malbec instead of an Argentinian one or skiing Japan instead of Whistler or Aspen. They're fine. They are unburdened. Those people that voted yes are unburdened by any of the bad things going on in the world. It's like TheHunger Games. Those in the city want the tribute from the bush and the regions and the suburbs. They bank their balances. They make their money from the iron ore and coal we mine in the regions and the food and fibre we make in the regions. So, when Senator Sterle gets up here and talks about the trucks, he's talking about the vehicles in which we send our tributes so the cities can make their money and build their skyscrapers. They are out there in the world, and they don't notice, they don't hear, the cries of the people doing it tough—the burdened; the oppressed; the people who want to have a voice about what their life is like. But this government doesn't want to hear. They want people like the Alan Joyces of the world, the Qantases and Wesfarmers—all the corporate people—saying, 'What a great thing this is.' And then, when we had our 'deplorables' moment in Australia, what did they get called? 'Racist', 'stupid', 'dickheads'— The DEPUT 10000 Senator Cadell, withdraw. Senator CADELL 300134 Sorry. I withdraw. But this is what they were called. That's the respect that the entitled give the workers of this country—the people in the regions and the people in the suburbs: 'Come into town, fix my dunny and get the hell out again.' That is what it's like. And this vote was so bad because this was about telling them what they had to think. If you had a voice of your own and a thought of your own, you weren't entitled to them; you were a person who didn't deserve to have that say. And that is where we're at. Don't hear their cries to have better lives, safer lives, affordable lives. Listen to your corporate elites. Listen to the people who already have money and the things you want, because—oh, my God—as we go forward, it's only going to get worse. They want electricity in these cities, in these shining examples. We'll send tribute. We'll destroy the landscape with wind farms out at Oberon. Everywhere between Oberon and Sydney, we'll just take your land for transmission lines. We won't even have an inquiry for you to have a voice in this place, because you don't deserve a voice. That is what we're getting to and what we are becoming. On the ABC—back in the day, when it was the AABC, the 'all Australians broadcasting corporation', before it became the WABC, the 'woke Australians broadcasting corporation'—we had a show called Upstairs, Downstairs that mum watched. Now it's becoming 'cities, not cities'. It's the same thing. There is a division in this country along the lines of wealth and power. The people who create the wealth—the ones who do the work, make the things and drive the trucks—don't have the power. So Senator Sterle is up here today, and he's giving them a voice, because the people in his party room don't want to hear it. They don't want to hear about the real people and what's going on there. I had a member of my own party who wasn't feeling important enough on the other side and went off to get his invitation to 'wokeland' by leaving us to go off and oppose us on the referendum. He didn't contribute to the internal conversation within the Nationals about where he was going to go, but he wanted to be important, he wanted to be someone, so he went out there. Then 71.79 per cent of Calare voted against what he said. There's never an opinion he thinks is more important than his own, and he followed it. And the people of Calare, one day, will make him atone for that. But, with this government, look at the Voice, look at the cost of living, look at this—and it's all coming. And what are they going to reinforce it with? We heard it mentioned today in another question: a misinformation bill, to stop you being able to have your say. They want you silenced, and they want you— The DEPUTY 10000 Thank you, Senator Cadell. Senator Smith. 15:19 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia I'm going to have a bit to say on the Voice and the referendum. I'm not going to do it in this debate, because I don't think it's really shaping up to be a particularly respectful environment in which to do that given the context of the weight of hurt and pain that many, many people in our country are feeling at the moment. But I will say, Senator Cadell, that you spoke about some of the nature of the debate and the toxicity we have seen over recent months. I would never use the word some of my volunteers were called during this referendum. The way elderly people were yelled at and how they were treated, in this chamber or outside of it, speak to a level of toxicity in our politics which is unacceptable and needs to be called out. I think the debate here this afternoon, which seeks to further paint a picture of our democracy and promote an idea that you can't have big debates and great ambition at the same time as doing the work of government, is a deliberate attempt to dumb down what we do in this place and to undermine the value of democracy, the value of parliaments and the value of the work many of us are trying to do here. I don't think it serves anyone in this place to start with a premise that you can't have an ambition for our country—an ambition to do something different and have a conversation respectfully—and do the work of government and the business of government at the same time. I will have more to say on the referendum and the Voice, but I'm not going to do it in this context and in this debate with this tone. The work of government continues, as it has since we came to government. We were elected on a platform of doing better for people in this country: no-one held back, no-one left behind. I don't know a single minister who's dropped the ball for a second in their work to try and deliver on that ambitious promise, that commitment to the Australian people. We get that Australians across our community are doing it really tough. These are difficult times, with difficult economic headwinds in difficult global environments. The pressures of inflation affect people across our community and they, of course, affect the poorest people in our community the worst. These are real economic pressures that are being felt right across our country. They are at front of mind for many people in our country, and that's why we are doing everything we can to deliver targeted cost-of-living relief which doesn't add pressure to inflation and therefore doesn't further impact the most vulnerable in our community, who lose out the most from a high-inflationary environment. At almost every step along the way in that journey to deliver this cost-of-living relief, you've tried to block it. You're a party of no, you're a party of division and you're a party that seeks to block, block, block, because you'd rather have the talking points to come into this place than actually be part of the solutions and be part of doing things which help people, such as cheaper medicines—where our reforms save patients $180 a year in the cost of medicines for some of the most vulnerable people in our community—our changes to the JobSeeker payment, our changes to youth allowance, and the HAFF. Our housing reforms will deliver tens of thousands of houses to some of the most vulnerable people in our community, including victims of domestic violence, another thing which you couldn't find it in your heart to support and which you blocked. You block, you say no and you seek to divide, and the tone of this debate has been no different today. I actually believe you can have big conversations in this country and do the work of government at the same time. We remain absolutely focused on taking the pressure off Australians in our community who are doing it really tough right now, for many different reasons. But, of course, an inflationary environment is hardest on those doing it toughest, and that has been at front of mind for our government, including our Prime Minister, our Treasurer, our finance minister and, indeed, every minister across our government who has levers to pull here, whether it's in early childhood, access to early learning and the cost of child care or whether it's in the cost of medicines. Every single person on this side of the chamber is fully focused on doing what we can to ease these pressures, because we as a government believe you can do this work. You can do this work to deliver for people, do the business of government and have ambition at the same time. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Just before you go, Senator Hughes, I alert the chamber that I will set the clock for three minutes and then I intend to put the question. I understand from the whips that One Nation will have two minutes, and then I'll give the call to the Greens for five. 15:24 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales We saw on Saturday a very substantial vote—across all six states Australians came out and said no. One of the reasons they came out and said no is that this debate has been dripping with sanctimony and a sense of superiority and it has been absolutely condescending to Australians and they have been insulted. We just heard then a contribution from someone opposite who supported the 'yes' campaign about their volunteers being called some names. Honestly, it's like they've looked in the mirror and tried to deflect. An Indigenous former sporting hero, who has been very vocal in his support for the 'yes' campaign, walked past one of our elderly women, who happens to be Jewish as well, and called her the most vile racist names as she was working on a pre-poll booth in the eastern suburbs of Sydney. The abuse that has been seen in this country is absolutely appalling, but I can tell you that the abuse has come from one side and one side only—the side of the 'yes' campaign. We know why 39 per cent of Australians said yes and 61 per cent of Australians said: 'Absolutely not. I will not be spoken to that way. I will not be treated that way. I am a smart Australian who knows that we are better together than divided by race. I am a smart Australian who wants our country to be a better place for all Australians, not just provide a select voice for some.' Those who voted no are not racist. Senator HUGHES 273828 I hear interjections from the Greens. I look forward to you going out and explaining to the 61 per cent of Australians who voted no that you still think they are racist for voting that way. Go and tell them. We know that's your modus operandi. We see over here the abuse that continued with the 'yes' campaign. It continues because those people are so tone deaf. Even today they are out there trying to undermine and abuse those who were on the 'no' side of the debate. I have been on the 'no' side of the debate for months and months. I'm incredibly proud of what New South Wales has achieved and the result we have seen in New South Wales. I note that New South Wales is currently sitting with a higher 'no' vote than Tasmania. The 'yes' campaign didn't really want to spend too much time in New South Wales. It was all about Tasmania and South Australia because they were the swing seats and Victoria and New South Wales were in the bag. New South Wales has voted more heavily 'no' than Tasmania. Sorry for that, Senator Duniam. Those in New South Wales really did engage. They really wanted to say: 'No. We are all Australians and we are better together.' There's more condescension and abuse coming from you lot. Bring it on. Everyday Australians know that you are absolutely full of it and full of your own self-importance and sanctimony. We've heard nothing but personal smears and attacks from Senator Sterle. What else would we expect? Question agreed to. Ms Cheng Lei 54 15:27 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to a question without notice asked by Senator Roberts today relating to the reporting of the release of Chinese Australian citizen Cheng Lei. The Chinese government announced that Cheng Lei's release was simply a matter of her completing a sentence of two years and 11 months. In her explanation though the minister claimed an emotional high ground that is not supported by events at the airport. Minister Wong was most welcome to make remarks to Cheng Lei's children in private, and she did so. The minister then restated and expanded her remarks to the press, which were widely reported. Further, at that press conference the minister stated that the release of Cheng Lei was a result of Senator Wong's perseverance, which the minister did not restate in her answer to me. Did her representations have any effect on the Chinese government? Not according to the Chinese government. Who is right? We may never know. One Nation is concerned about the Albanese government's misinformation and disinformation bill as applied to this situation. As drafted, the government and mainstream media are exempt from the bill. The Guardian's slobbering all over Minister Wong and the Albanese government over Cheng Lei would be exempt from this bill. The government can say whatever it likes and the mouthpiece media can repeat and even embellish those claims and that would be legal. Bloggers and social media companies who question the narrative though would be guilty of misinformation and fined or shut down. Weibo, which announced the Chinese government's side of the story, has an office in Sydney and would be regulated under that bill. There's no provision in the bill for truth as a defence. There's no definition of what is misinformation. If this bill is passed, democracy itself will be at risk from an unending one-sided glorification of the ruling party. Last weekend, Australians rejected this sort of propaganda in the referendum campaign. The government proceeds with a misinformation and disinformation bill at its peril, because the people will see through it, just like they saw through the lies in the 'yes' case. This is about censorship. Question agreed to. First Nations Australians: Cultural Heritage 54 15:30 Senator COX 296215 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 asked by Senator Cox today relating to federal Aboriginal cultural heritage legislation. My questions were very clear to Senator Wong and they were in relation to the federal Aboriginal cultural heritage legislation. There has been much debate in this place about what happened in my home state of Western Australia. In fact, I went specifically on my first question to the time line. I wanted to know how long we had to keep kicking the can down the road, because First Nations people in this country are always put into a situation, unfortunately, where they are continuing to have to protect and preserve the cultural heritage that links us to place, to story, to our heritage through the laws that have been built in this country. The whole reason and premise that we have come to this situation is because of what happened at Juukan Gorge—46,000 years old rock shelters blasted by Rio Tinto in the Pilbara region only a couple of years ago. Now, First Nations people in this country continue to ask the questions: How long do we have to keep waiting? How long will we wait for someone to provide a law to hold people accountable in this country? I want to sketch the time line out to you, just very quickly. The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Protection Alliance was formed back in 2020, only two months after the Juukan Gorge destruction, by, in fact, the previous government. There have been several reports, several visions and best-practice standards. In fact, there was the Samuel review, which Senator Hanson-Young also mentioned, about the EPBC reform that should be done. There was also the A Way Forward and Never Again reports of the northern Australia inquiry into Juukan Gorge. But that is not it. That is not where it ended. In fact, there have been 26 years of review of legislation in this country, and all of those reviews have landed saying that Commonwealth laws need to be amended or, in fact, replaced to be effective mechanisms for protection of Aboriginal cultural heritage in this country. In fact, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act was only put in place as a temporary measure. It was to be replaced by a more comprehensive legislation, and that, in fact, was the intention. We were to just put it in place as a temporary measure and then we would move on, do the job and get comprehensive legislation in place. We are nearly 30 years on and still kicking the can further down the road, which means every single day in this country our Aboriginal cultural heritage is under threat. The whole premise was because, in my home state of Western Australia, the section 18s that allowed industry permission to blast near those rock shelters were insufficient and didn't provide ample regulation to prevent that happening. Juukan Gorge exposed how far-reaching this is. From Nammuldi to Murujuga, from the ancient songlines to the burial sites we see at the Tiwi Islands, from the sacred forests of the Pilliga to the sacred caves in the Great Australian Bight and the home of Senator Barbara Pocock sitting beside me, everywhere mob are fighting for their country against huge companies and governments in this country that are captured by industry. We know that cultural heritage must include free, prior and informed consent. It is part of our commitment to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. But we need to make sure it is enshrined in all of the legislation across this country. But importantly, if we're going to protect country we have to know what consent looks like and we have to know what we're protecting. That includes intangible and tangible cultural heritage: the stories, the songlines, the things that people cannot see. It is not just landmarks that you can see. The only people that are going to be able to tell you that are First Nations people. We need to start listening, but we also need to start acting. That is the role of this place. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 55 DOCUMENTS Goods And Services Tax 55 Order for the Production of Documents 55 15:35 The DEPUTY 287062 PRESIDENT (): Pursuant to order I call on Minister Gallagher to provide an explanation. 15:35 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory In the past hour I have been made aware that Senator Smith no longer wants to proceed with this item on the daily program, and I take the opportunity to update the chamber that these Senate orders for the production of documents were provided on Friday 13 September, meaning that the order was complied with. 15:35 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia by leave—I would like to speak to the attendance of the minister. While one of the OPDs, 306, in regard to ACCC monitoring, was complied with in full, the second OPD, 307, in regard to GST documents between the Treasurer and state and territory governments was only complied with in part, and the Treasurer sought a PII claim in regard to one particular document, given the implications for Commonwealth-state federal relations. I would like to speak to that. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Smith, you're entitled to move to take note of that response. Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. There is an important narrative that has been built by this government, built by the decisions it's taking in regard to the compliance with orders made by this Senate for production of documents. Just to be clear, when an order for the production of documents is agreed to by the Senate, it is agreed to by the Senate in a vote, with a majority vote. The narrative that this government is choosing to create—it could create a more positive narrative—is one of secrecy and lack of accountability. That should be particularly concerning, because in August last year the Prime Minister, Mr Albanese himself, said to Australians that the Australian people deserve accountability and transparency, not secrecy. That was Prime Minister Albanese's commitment to the Australian people. But the actions of the government in this Senate in not comply with OPDs, or complying with them in such a tardy and overdue way, undermines the authority of the Senate, and it undermines the ability for opposition, independent and crossbench senators to do an important part of the Senate's work, which is one of review and inquiry and scrutiny. So, as I said to the Deputy President, this matter involved two orders for the production of documents. The first was in regard to correspondence between the Treasurer and the ACCC in regard to the ACCC's monitoring regime for airlines in Australia. I thank the government for delivering that OPD in full. But it was four weeks late. The second OPD, which was agreed to by the Senate, and the minister had to attend because it had not been previously complied with within the time that was required, is in regard to conversations about the GST distribution system between the Treasurer and his state and territory colleagues. There's probably no issue in our country, no public policy issue that causes more angst, that requires more transparency, than how GST revenues get distributed. After a very long and protracted debate we got a better arrangement in 2018 under the former government in regard to how those GST distribution arrangements would work. We now know that those GST distribution arrangements agreed to in 2018 are actively being reviewed by Treasurer Chalmers and his state and territory colleagues, but they're not letting us see the detail. How do we know that those GST distributions are under active discussion now? Because of a board of treasurers meeting and a board of treasurers correspondence. The Board of Treasurers, which is the board of all the state and territory treasuries—not the Commonwealth federal financial relations committee, which is chaired by the Treasurer, but the Board of Treasurers—has been corresponding with the Treasurer, through the Council on Federal Financial Relations, on how to progress with further GST distribution reform and the government is hiding those documents. There's one document in particular that it's not allowing us to see. It's that document which Treasurer Jim Chalmers talks about in his letter of 10 October to Senator Gallagher. In that letter, he says, 'I will claim public interest immunity over one further document within the scope of the order on the grounds that it would disclose the deliberations of the Council of Federal Financial Relations and adversely affect Commonwealth/state relations.' GST reform is being actively discussed, and the government doesn't want to show its hand. Question agreed to. NOTICES 56 NOTICES Withdrawal 56 15:41 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 39 standing in my name for the next day of sitting. 15:41 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 341 standing in my name for today. Presentation 56 Withdrawal 58 BUSINESS 58 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 58 15:42 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That the following general business orders of the day, be considered this week at the time for private senators' bills: (a) on Wednesday, 18 October 2023—Freeze on Rent and Rate Increases Bill 2023; and (b) on Thursday, 19 October 2023—Australian Capital Territory Dangerous Drugs Bill 2023, and Competition and Consumer Amendment (Continuing ACCC Monitoring of Domestic Airline Competition) Bill 2023. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 58 15:42 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Ruston for today, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. (Quorum formed) DOCUMENTS 59 DOCUMENTS Special Purpose Flights 59 Order for the Production of Documents 59 15:45 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that the response from the Minister for Defence to order for the production of documents no. 309, relating to Special Purpose Aircraft guidelines, did not include a copy of the draft 2023 Special Purpose Aircraft guidelines; and (b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Defence to attend the Senate, after motions to take note of answers on Tuesday, 17 October 2023, to provide an explanation of not more than 5 minutes of the failure to table the draft 2023 guidelines, and that: (i) any senator may move to take note of the explanation; and (ii) any such motion may be debated for no longer than 30 minutes, shall have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each. 15:45 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland by leave—I move: Omit all words after "That the Senate", substitute: notes that: (a) the Senate agreed in order for the production of documents no. 309 that: (i) security agencies are best placed to complete threat assessments in relation to the security of parliamentarians and their families, and (ii) the Minister for Defence must comply with the order to the extent that such information can be provided consistent with the advice from security agencies; (b) the status of order for the production of documents no. 309, as recorded in the document compiled by the Department of the Senate, is "Order complied with"; and (c) consistent with order for the production of documents no. 311, the Government has provided a copy of the revised draft Special Purpose Aircraft (SPA) Guidelines to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security along with a confidential briefing with agencies that informed the changes to the SPA Guidelines. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question before the chamber is that the motion for an order of production of documents standing in the name of Senator Shoebridge be amended.  

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

 18 AYES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. White, L. 39 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McKim, N. J. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 15:53 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland by leave—The government will not be supporting this motion. The government notes that the Senate's website lists the order in question as complied with. We also note that the Senate agreed in this order that information should be provided to the extent that it can be provided, consistent with the advice from security agencies, which is exactly what the government has done. The government further notes that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security had an opportunity to review a copy of the revised guidelines in compliance with Senate order No. 311. Senator Shoebridge may not like the answer he was given, but he received a very clear and thorough answer from the Deputy Prime Minister in compliance with that order. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question before the Senate is that the motion moved by Senator Shoebridge for an order for the production of documents be agreed to.  

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

 40 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McKim, N. J. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. 18 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 Murray-Darling Basin Plan 60 16:01 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania On behalf of Senator Davey, I move: That the Senate— (a) notes: (i) that on 6 September 2023, order for production of documents no. 318 was agreed by the Senate requiring the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than 10 am on Thursday, 14 September 2023, to table copies of any briefing notes, media briefing notes, file notes, emails, written communication and reports held and generated by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, the Murray Darling Basin Authority and the Commonwealth Environmental Water Office since May 2022 regarding: (A) the agreement of Murray-Darling Basin ministers to deliver the Basin Plan in full, released by the Minister for the Environment and Water on 22 August 2023, (B) options to deliver the remaining water, including water efficiency infrastructure projects and voluntary water purchases, (C) funding, including funding sources and rationale behind how much funding each state and territory will receive on signing up to the new agreement, (D) new supply projects, (E) options to deliver the 450 GL of water for enhanced environmental outcomes, (F) package of 'no regrets' constraints relaxation projects, including what constraints projects are considered to be 'no regrets', (G) minimising the socioeconomic impact on communities of buybacks, (H) water recovery options, (I) consultants engaged to work on the agreement and all aspects related including market advice on options to recover water, and (J) the December 2018 Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council agreement on socioeconomic criteria and the associated assessment, which was adopted as the basis of the neutrality test for assessing efficiency measures projects, and (ii) as at 11 am on Thursday, 14 September 2023, the order had not been complied with; and (b) resolves to: (i) reaffirm its agreement to the order, and (ii) require the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water to comply with the order as soon as possible, and by no later than midday on Tuesday, 17 October 2023. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 61 MOTIONS Parliamentary Standards: Lobbyists 61 16:01 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I remind senators that after 4.30 pm on Thursday 14 September 2023 a division was called on the motion moved by Senator David Pocock relating to general business notice of motion No. 334, concerning lobbying rules. I understand it suits the convenience of the Senate for the deferred vote to be held now. The question is that the motion be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [16:03]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

 16 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. (Teller) Rennick, G. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. 27 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 NOTICES 62 NOTICES Presentation 62 16:05 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Pursuant to standing order 78(1), I give notice of my intention, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name for the next day of sitting, proposing the disallowance of the Social Security (Remote Engagement Program Payment) Determination 2023. Presentation 62 16:06 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I seek leave to present a notion of motion. The attendance of the minister finished sooner than I thought it was going to, so I missed the spot. I hope that nobody minds if I do that. Leave granted. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following bill be introduced: a Bill for an Act to amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and for related purposes. This bill will introduce a water trigger into our environment laws to stop fracking in the Northern Territory. MATTERS OF URGENCY 62 MATTERS OF URGENCY Environment 62 16:07 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator McKim has submitted a proposal under standing order 75 today: Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today the Australian Greens propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The Environment Minister continues to approve new coal and gas projects without having to consider the climate damage they will create. In the face of the climate and biodiversity crises, national environment laws must be urgently fixed to ensure the Environment Minister cannot ignore climate pollution when giving environment approvals." Is consideration of 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. 16:07 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia At the request of Senator McKim, I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The Environment Minister continues to approve new coal and gas projects without having to consider the climate damage they will create. In the face of the climate and biodiversity crises, national environment laws must be urgently fixed to ensure the Environment Minister cannot ignore climate pollution when giving environment approvals. I rise to speak to this very important matter, and I would like to ensure that, as we debate this issue today, people understand the real urgency of this matter. We have environment laws in this country that allow for the environment minister, when giving approval for new projects—whether it's a mine or a new gas well—to not even consider the climate impacts of such projects. We live in an era of climate crisis and biodiversity crisis. We are edging quickly this year to a summer that is going to be absolutely horrible—hotter, drier and more extreme. And yet we have laws in this country that do not even consider how those climate fires and the climate crisis are being made worse by the expansion of fossil fuels. Every new coal or gas project risks the future of our Murray-Darling Basin, the food bowl of our nation. Every new coal or gas project puts our reef at risk. Every new coal or gas project risks the future of our children. Every new coal or gas project puts Australia's risk of more frequent, more devastating and more dreadful bushfires nearer and nearer in front of us. Every new coal or gas project fuels extinction. Australia was the first country to record mammal extinction as a result of climate change, and we can't afford any more. Australia was one of the first countries to really experience the extreme weather events of the bushfires and of the floods this millennia. And we know that those extreme weather events are made worse and worse by the climate crisis. Every time a new coalmine or a new gas mine is opened up or expanded, it is making our climate crisis worse. This year the environment minister, whose job it is to protect the environment, has given the stamp of approval to not just one but two, three, four, at least five fossil fuel projects that are fuelling the climate crisis and will make this summer's bushfires worse—just this year. And the reason is that we have environment laws that ignore the climate damage and climate risk of pollution from coal and gas. We urgently need to fix this. We cannot rely on the goodwill of government to deny approval to these projects; we've seen that. We know that the fossil fuel lobby in this country is too strong, is still calling the shots and is still applying pressure to members of parliament and government. In 2023, as we face an even worsening climate, it is time to fix these laws and make the minister do her job. 16:11 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania At the outset I want to recommit the coalition's view that, when it comes to environmental laws, we need to have balance. We need to balance economic needs against environmental needs and make sure we have an economy that's functioning while we have an environment that sustains life. That is paramount in this debate, and it sometimes gets lost. We shouldn't have it too far one way or too far the other way. This motion doesn't achieve balance. There is inflammatory language, and at the end of the day, as evidenced by what we've just heard and, indeed, from some of the remarks earlier in the day, it is leading us to a point that is really just about saying no to these projects. They'll say it's about assessments but they will say it is all about 'no' at the end of it: 'We just don't want these projects to happen.' That doesn't take account— Senator Rice 155410 Yes, that's right! We're in a crisis! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Senator Rice! Senator DUNIAM 263418 Senator Rice, who has been interjecting—and I know you are about to call her up, Acting Deputy President Polley—says, 'Yes, that's right.' But that attitude and argument does not take account of the fact that we as a society require energy to sustain jobs, to live, to run hospitals, to keep the lights on. That is the terrible approach that's been taken by the Australian Greens, which does not achieve balance. That is why we won't be supporting a political motion of this nature. Having said all that, and despite the fact that such an approach would be bad for Australia in so many ways right across the country—particularly in the regions, I might add—there is a lot more at play here which is cause for concern in relation to our environmental laws. It was quite clear today; in listening to an answer that was given to a question asked by Senator Hanson-Young about reforms—and this very issue, as a matter of fact—it was apparent to me that the government is considering going down this pathway or a version of what's being proposed. Of course, the Greens would like to have it happen tomorrow. The government is working through its protracted, delayed and blown-out process. But, at the end of the day, it looks very much like another deal has been done between Labor and the Greens. We will see the detail of that over time. I want to talk more broadly about the issue we face with environmental laws in this country. Senator Hanson-Young makes some very valid points around the fact that the laws aren't fit for purpose. They need reform; the Samuel review said so and the minister said so. I will never forget that Press Club address that Minister Plibersek gave, talking about the urgent need to act on environmental law reform, to protect our environment, to stop extinctions, to make sure the laws are fit for purpose, to provide certainty to business, the community and the environmental movement and to have streamlined processes. It was all very urgent. All of that seems to have just been words, because, despite those calls for urgent action and a commitment by the minister that things would get cracking—'we don't have a day to waste'—despite the commitment to zero new extinctions, despite the commitment to 30 per cent of land being preserved for conservation purposes by 2030 and despite all of the other commitments that have been made, we are still nowhere near conclusion on reform of environmental laws. Again, Senator Hanson-Young's good work revealed that there's at least a 12-month delay in the government's efforts to reform these laws. So this is far from a need for urgent action and the government firing on all cylinders to reform this area of work. We are now around two years behind schedule on these reforms. They were announced and they were going to happen—we'd be fixing everything, we'd be stopping extinctions and we'd have a clearer pathway for businesses to seek approvals to do anything—but now that's another two years off. That's why I look at this motion, which is kind of odd given there is a position in this chamber to not deal with the nature repair market legislation before we see the full suite of environmental law reforms in this country. That's a wise course of action, because we very much have a scrambled egg when it comes to the EPBC Act, which we are seeking to reform, yet the government is trying to stack up schemes and programs that will no doubt be out of date by the time these laws have passed because the basic laws we need to reform in this place will change. The motion here today, and the legislation that I understand has just been introduced, is another version of that too. We're tinkering around the edges rather than the government getting on and doing what they promised they would do as a matter of urgency, which is reforming national environmental laws. The changes need to happen at the base level. We need to get the basics right. The environmental laws need to happen. I have not heard from the government about what they intend to do. Others have and some in the community have, but the opposition hasn't. (Time expired) 16:16 Senator WHITE IWK Victoria Contrary to the assertions made by the Greens Party in the chamber today, the federal Labor government is committed to bringing down emissions and protecting our natural environment. The evidence of this commitment exists in the statute books, the pieces of legislation made law often with the support of the Greens, who have brought this motion to the Senate today. It's true that we worked with the Greens to implement a climate target to legislate a net zero commitment and to legislate a climate safeguard mechanism. But, as is usual when it comes to motions moved by the Greens, the bigger picture of what the government has achieved and the evidence of the government's commitment to climate reform and environmental protection has been ignored. For example, it's still true that any decision taken by the climate and energy minister when considering coal and gas projects must comply with emissions targets and our net zero commitment. Our climate safeguard laws were introduced to ensure that any new projects emitting over 100,000 tonnes of emissions must cut those emissions by up to 4.9 per cent per year or offset those emissions. This also applies to the 215 largest polluting sites in Australia and acts as a five-year rolling cap. The government's whole environmental and energy transition framework is concentrated on locating an appropriate balance, which requires the climate minister to assess whether new fossil fuel developments are consistent with the goal of bringing down industrial emissions. That was the point of the safeguard mechanism that we developed with the Greens and the Independents. In that vein, it is clear to everyone that our transition to net zero emissions and renewable energy is a massive job. Transitioning smoothly towards meeting our targets is an economic challenge, as well as an environmental one. Getting to 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030 is still the government's commitment, and that shows Labor is serious about addressing climate change. But, of course, the necessary transition can't happen overnight. Nevertheless, we have ramped up approval of renewable projects, which have almost doubled, with 104 projects in the pipeline to date. In fact, just this week, the government approved the biggest battery project in Asia, and a few weeks ago a massive new solar farm at Smoky Creek in Queensland was given the green light, which will produce enough power for around 200,000 households, with a million megawatts of more power entering the grid. These are just two of 37 renewable energy projects that have been approved since Labor came to office and acted quickly to renew the Commonwealth's focus on our renewable energy transition. In relation to the transition, I acknowledge that in the recent past things haven't moved as quickly as some would hope, but the sad fact is that we have had more than a decade of political fighting that has cost us much in our energy transition and action on climate change. Because of the infighting in the coalition and the single-mindedness of the Greens, emissions have been higher for longer and the delivery of certainty for renewable energy projects looking to invest in upscaling clean energy was set back. In their time in government, the coalition had 22 failed energy policies, which got us nowhere. They harboured in their party, and still do harbour, climate denialists who would happily see all our good work on climate change undermined and reversed. Of course, how could we forget the greatest betrayal of all when it came to the climate future of Australians, when the Greens and the coalition teamed up to sink Labor's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme when we were last in government? It was a tragic moment for our nation when the odd bedfellows of the coalition and the Greens got together to sink a good policy which by now would have prevented more than 80 million tonnes of emissions being released into the atmosphere. After this decade of lost policy and missed opportunities, Australians rightly had had a gutful and chose to elect a Labor government in 2022. We acted almost immediately to implement our ambitious climate agenda, including capping emissions, legislating net zero and reshaping the tone of the debate around climate policy in Australia to acknowledge that the economic challenges of transitioning our country towards renewable energy were something we could no longer shy away from. It is in that spirit that the government will continue to act, striking the balance and building the framework for a clean energy future where fossil fuel developments are held up to the light and measured against our legislated targets and renewable energy commitments. The agenda of renewable energy development and ending the climate wars will rightly be at the forefront of the government's agenda now and in the future. 16:21 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Three years ago, Professor Graeme Samuel was commissioned by the previous government to do a report on our national environmental laws. It was scathing. They are not working and need to be updated. He found: The impact of climate change on the environment will exacerbate pressures and contribute to further decline. In its current state, the environment is not sufficiently resilient to withstand these threats. The current environmental trajectory is unsustainable. What we're seeing in Australia is state capture by the fossil fuel companies and a negligent failure to act by both sides of politics. We know too much now to continue down this path. We have Labor ministers, Labor senators, telling us about the projects they are approving when it comes to renewables, and at the same time they're ramping up our fossil fuel exports. We know how urgent this is. It is now negligence. We are throwing our future under the bus for short-term profits. During my last year in high school, 2005, the now Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, introduced his own private member's bill to insert a climate trigger into our environmental laws. That was 2005. Here we are in 2023 and we've got a Labor government that has the numbers to do that today but won't do it. You have to ask yourself why. Why are we seeing this inaction from Labor? We are disrespecting our climate scientists. We have scientists, like Dr Joelle Gergis, who have put their life into raising the alarm, into telling us how bad it is. She was the lead scientist on the sixth IPCC report. It was the last one, the last warning before the window of 1.5 degrees to two degrees closes, yet we're seeing inaction from Labor. We must do better. (Time expired) 16:23 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland People might not realise it, but there is no requirement to even think about the impact on the climate when the environment minister has to decide whether to approve or refuse new coal, oil or gas projects. It sounds insane, doesn't it? That's what our environmental laws, written in 1999, when then Prime Minister John Howard was in charge, say. Twenty-three years ago it was decided—and it hasn't been changed since—that the environment minister didn't have to think about the climate when they were ticking off on anything, including coal and gas mines. It is utterly ridiculous. I say this as a former environmental lawyer. I was an environmental lawyer before coming to this place, and I've been involved in several court cases that have tried to fix this. I want to pay tribute to all of the other community members and environment groups who have continued to challenge this patently ridiculous notion through the courts and have, sadly, been largely unsuccessful. Just last week, we saw the environment minister stand not with the community or the environment but with the coalmining companies and argue against the fact that she should think about the climate when she ticks off on yet more coalmines. We've seen five new coalmines approved so far under this new Labor government, who promised to be different to the last government. Many of these new coalmines are in my home state of Queensland and will turbocharge those bushfires that have already started. I'm getting SES warnings every day and it strikes fear into my heart, as I'm sure it strikes fear into anybody's heart who has gone through the bushfires or the floods—any of these turbocharged natural disasters—that we've seen in the last few years. We've got the IPCC, the International Energy Agency, our Pacific neighbours and everybody saying, 'No new coal, oil and gas.' We can't keep warming to 1.5 degrees. We are threatening the livelihood and the very existence of not only human settlements but also our precious biodiversity. Nature is meant to have an ally in the environment minister. But, I'm sorry; we do not have that in our current environment minister. When she stands with coalmining companies rather than with nature, it's just heartbreaking. So do better. We need a climate trigger in our environmental laws. We needed one 23 years ago. We definitely need one now. Usually, it's something that says you've got to consider an impact on something that's internationally or nationally significant. We think the climate trigger should say, 'You just can't approve new coal, oil and gas.' But we're open to the conversation. At the moment, the environment minister is legally allowed to ignore the impacts on the climate. What they're not ignoring are the political donations made by the fossil fuel companies that flood into the coffers of both of the large parties in this place. We need to stop approving new coal and gas mines and we need these two parties to stop taking the money from the coal, oil and gas companies. 16:26 Senator 266524 Queensland ROBERTS () (): One Nation joins Senator McKim in mourning the current environmental damage as a casualty of destructive net zero climate policy. We do, though, disagree on who's responsible. As we speak today, heavy machinery using diesel engines are still crushing the rock that was bulldozed and blasted off the top of mountains in the Atherton Tablelands to make way for wind turbines. A year after Kaban, when turbines turned pristine Australian landscape into an industrial landscape, the crushers are still going. There was that much destruction. That act of environmental vandalism disturbed arsenic in the rock, released into the environment with an unknown cost to our flora and fauna and to humans. Koala habitat has been taken. While the Greens talk frequently about saving the koalas, they pick and choose which koalas they care about. The Morrison government refused the Lotus Creek wind installation because of the amount of koala habitat the industrial landscape would remove. The Albanese Labor government reversed the decision and approved the creation of another industrial landscape holding 55 turbines. Native habitat protecting biodiversity included the masked owl, the magnificent broodfrog, the sarus crane, the red goshawk, the northern greater glider and the spectacled flying fox—and the devastation is just starting. Mount Fox will have 193 of these machines—these destructive wind turbines; Chalumbin, 94; Windy Hill, 20; High Road, 20; and Mount Emerald, 37. This is in just 300 kilometres of pristine North Queensland mountain range. At the end of mining, a mine can be filled in and remediated. Chopping the top off beautiful mountains and cutting 70-metre-wide roads into a mountainside to bring in the wind turbines on diesel powered trucks is permanent environmental vandalism. 16:28 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria There is so much to be despairing about in the world at the moment. There are thousands dead in Israel and Palestine. We have a humanitarian catastrophe in Palestine, with war crimes being committed and complete disregard for international law. We have the rise of racism across the world. Very sadly, we had the defeat over the weekend of a very moderate proposal for a First Nations Voice to Parliament. We've got authoritarian, oppressive regimes rising around the world. We have the climate crisis. It's not hyperbole to say that the climate crisis is an existential threat to our wellbeing, to the lives of billions and billions of humans on this planet and to our food supplies. In so many of these huge things to despair about, these existential threats to the wellbeing of billions of people on the planet, Australia only plays a pretty small role. There is not much we can do other than advocate and use our influence on the global stage. But on the climate crisis, we are powerful. We can act, and act we must. If you are in any doubt about what we are facing, I do recommend reading the book I'm currently reading—Humanity's Moment by IPCC lead author, Joelle Gergis. It leaves you in no doubt at all just how freaking serious what we are facing is. I remind people, as I have in so many speeches in this place, that with four degrees of global heating, which the world is currently on track for, the climate of our wheat-growing areas here in Australia will become like the climate of the central deserts. We will not be able to grow our food. I remind people that with four degrees of global heating, billions of people who currently live in the tropics will not be able to live in the tropics; they will die. The land that they are living on will be underwater. They will not be able to grow food. They will not be able to survive the extreme heat. Their water supplies will be completely cactus, as will the lives of so many other species that we share this planet with, from the penguins currently affected by the melting sea ice and the unprecedented warm ocean temperatures to all the sea creatures that depend on the Great Barrier Reef. No-one looking clear eyed is going to say that the Great Barrier Reef is going to be in very good shape after the next two summers. The animals that live in our incredible tall wet forests across the country are going to be under threat of massive bushfires that we have never seen before over the next two summers and then getting worse as the temperatures get hotter and hotter. Balance doesn't cut it. Balance means catastrophe. We have to act. We can and we must act. Australia is the largest exporter of gas in the world. We are the second-largest exporter of coal. We have the power to stop approving and to stop opening up new coal and gas mines. We have the power to stop exporting what is causing the climate crisis. We have to do that if we're going to be playing our role in tackling the climate crisis. We have the power to listen to the climate scientists, to treat the crisis as an emergency. We have the power to shift our energy supplies here to 100 per cent renewable energy and to slash our overall carbon emissions. And we have the power to change our environment laws so that the minister has to take account of the climate crisis in considering whether or not to approve projects. For goodness sake, the very minimum that we must do as Australians is insert a climate trigger into our environment laws, absolutely. But you hear both sides saying it is too much. I tell people if they will not listen that there is only one thing we can do. We have to chuck them out, because we know what is at stake. If people are concerned about climate then don't vote for them, chuck them out, let the consequences be felt at elections to come, because we know there are things that we can do. The Greens are committed to taking action to build a safer climate, to restore a safe climate for all of humanity. I encourage people to work with us so we can do our best to make it happen. 16:33 Senat 298839 Queensland or ALLMAN-PAYNE () (): It is unconscionable for an environment minister to continue to approve new coal and gas projects. Each approval makes the climate and biodiversity crisis worse and it means the destruction of our environment. I recently accepted an invitation to travel to Poruma Island to meet with members of the Torres Strait 8 and young community leaders from Zenadh Kes, who are living the consequences of these decisions. It was a real honour and privilege to spend a day with such an outstanding group of young people who, together with their elders, are working together to protect their island home. After joining the group for a morning of workshops and important conversations, we began the afternoon sessions with a tour of the island, led by Councillor Pearson, to see firsthand how the ever-increasing erosion caused by sea level rise is bringing the ocean right up to their front doors. Councillor Pearson explained how the amount of land lost to erosion is increasing each year, and he showed us the walls of sandbags that are the only thing standing between people's homes, which are now perilously close to the water's edge, and the rising seas. I also listened to distressing firsthand accounts of islanders having to collect their ancestors' bones from the beach, as their burial grounds are repeatedly inundated by seawater, and I listened to their pleas for no new coal and gas and for government investment in seawalls. If the Labor government are serious about tackling the climate and biodiversity crisis then, instead of fighting tooth and nail to approve new coal and gas projects, they must consider the damage that will inevitably flow from each approval of a new coal or gas mine, and they must fix our environment laws so the minister cannot ignore the impacts of climate pollution. 16:35 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales You couldn't make this stuff up. We have an environment minister, Minister Plibersek, approving coalmine after coalmine after coalmine and never having to check on the climate change implications of that. How could you possibly come up with laws that look at environmental assessment and, when it comes to coalmines, not assess the climate impact of approving a coalmine? I'll tell you how you do that: you do that because the Labor Party and the coalition joined together to gut our environment laws and ignore the impact of climate. Just since coming into office, Minister Plibersek has already approved four new or expanded coalmines. We're talking about 55 million tonnes of additional coal. That's about 150 million tonnes of CO2, all on Minister Plibersek's watch, actually approved by her, and not once did the minister have to consider climate impacts when doing that. That is absurd, and it's actually dangerous to our national security. It's dangerous to our regional security, as we've heard from speaker after speaker. But what's worse is that there are another 29 of these projects lined up, waiting for Minister Plibersek to sign off—another 29 new or expanded coalmines—and under the current laws the minister will never have to consider the climate impacts. We're talking about more than 5,000 million tonnes of coal and about 12 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide. Could you imagine having environment laws that see Minister Plibersek signing off on 29 new coalmines, with billions of tonnes of carbon emissions, and never considering climate? The only way that happens is that Labor and the coalition are in the pocket of the fossil fuel industries and they want to burn our planet down. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 The question is that the motion moved by Senator Hanson-Young be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [16:42]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Chandler)

11 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Babet, R. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. 25 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hughes, H. A. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 68 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Cost of Living 68 16:45 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 The Senate will now consider the proposal from Senator O'Sullivan, which is also shown at item 16 on today's Order of Business: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: The need for Prime Minister Albanese to prioritise helping Australian households and small businesses deal with the cost of living crisis. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing 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. 16:45 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia The matter of public importance that I've proposed here today is for the Senate to take a look and recognise the fact that Prime Minister Albanese needs to prioritise helping Australian households and small businesses deal with the cost-of-living crisis. Anyone that's spending any time in the community speaking to any Australian recognises that this is the single biggest issue that Australians are facing right now. It's not just those that are on low incomes; it's affecting people right through to the upper bands of the middle incomes and even some on higher incomes. It's a cost-of-living crisis that is impacting upon every Australian, yet this Prime Minister has proven that he is distracted and that he is not capable of dealing with multiple things at once, like a Prime Minister should be able to do. A government should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time, but this government is proving that it is not even capable of doing that. They've just held this referendum, and a resounding decision was made. A resounding position was given by the Australian people to this government to get back to focusing on the things that are really going to impact on their lives. But it's worse than the fact that the government can't do multiple things at once. The issue is they don't have a reasonable, sensible, workable plan to address this cost-of-living crisis. It's not just that they're not capable of doing a few things at once; they don't even have a plan that's reasonable, that's sensible, that's workable and that's going to deliver on addressing this rampant inflation that we've got. Australians know that petrol prices are going up and rental prices are going up. Their mortgages have gone up. Australians are being forced to spend significantly more for the critical items that they need, like their groceries. I mentioned fuel—insurance has gone through the roof. Energy and housing prices have gone through the roof. Australians are spending on these things rather than the things that they really want. I want to read a statement from the RBA on its decision to keep October interest rates unchanged at 4.1 per cent. They said: … the economy is still experiencing a period of below-trend growth and this is expected to continue for a while. High inflation is weighing on people's real incomes and household consumption growth is weak, as is dwelling investment … High inflation makes life difficult for everyone and damages the functioning of the economy. That's what they said. Now listen to this. They said: It erodes the value of savings, hurts household budgets, makes it harder for businesses to plan and invest, and worsens income inequality. This is why inflation should have been and needs to be the absolute No. 1 priority of the government, but they're lost at sea, and it is impacting Australians. Australians are hurting right now, but this government is distracted by all sorts of other things, like, for example, industrial relations reform that is really just aimed at increasing the union grip on and control over the workplaces of Australia. That's what this government has planned for the industrial relations system, because it's not truly addressing the issues. They could be quite precisely dealing with some of the matters that relate to the industrial relations system, but instead they've got this broad-brush response that is going to cruel business. It will drive down employment in this country. If you're a casual, forget about it under this government. If you want flexibility in the workplace, forget about it under this government. If you have to work a second job to make ends meet, forget about it under this government. They're completely lost at sea. They've been distracted, but their plans are not actually addressing the issues. We've seen productivity growth at a seven-year low, and there's nothing that this government is doing to address productivity. Real wages are going backwards, because all wages are doing is chasing the high inflation that the government is creating by its economic measures, which are not actually helping people to address their cost of living. This government is lost at sea, it's distracted and it needs to get focused, because it's hurting people. 16:50 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Well, isn't it interesting? I don't think there's a person—certainly on this side—who doesn't have a concern about how tight it is out there in household budgets at the moment. The reason I say 'on this side' is that we actually understand that there are cost-of-living pressures and that inflation is being felt at kitchen tables around the country, but obviously those on the other side don't know that, because, instead of supporting relief, the coalition keep putting up roadblocks. Instead of having answers, they're aimless. Their only answer is to say no. They say no to the lowering of power prices. We introduced coal and gas price caps, easing the pressure on energy bills. Then those opposite turn around and say no. They said no to energy bill relief. In partnership with states, we are delivering rebates for around five million households and one million small businesses. They've said no to better pay and more secure jobs for Australian workers. Of course, those on the opposite side want to say this is some sort of class war, but the actual battle, the actual argument, is between good employers who do the right thing and bad employers who are happy to rip people off by not giving them an ethical, fair return on their labour, whether those people be small-business people, owner-drivers, gig workers or employees. Good companies doing the right thing are being unfairly competed with by the companies that are always on the opposite side, always on the side of making sure we make it as tough as we can, rather than lifting all boats. When you start talking about those who are on the good side of business, you have to talk about people like Peter Anderson, the national secretary of the Australian Road Transport Industrial Organisation, representing small, medium and large businesses across this country in transport. He says about the laws that are proposed, 'Our unity shows how critical it is for the federal parliament to pass reform into law to give all industry participants a fighting chance.' They'll hate this, but Michael Kaine from the Transport Workers Union—the head of the largest small-business organisation in this country—says, 'Life-saving transport reform is the answer, and the federal parliament is being asked by the entire industry to pass it into law.' As small-business representatives, employee representatives and other business representatives are saying, we need laws to change to make our businesses safer, more secure and more viable. But that doesn't fit with the politics on the other side, because they want fights between capital and labour. They want to pretend they're on the capital side when the reality is that lots of good operating businesses want reforms. They want fair reforms. Warren Clark of the National Road Transport Association had some different views some years back but now is one of the leading lights in saying there needs to be reform so that we can bolster and build productivity and enhance safety for everyone. The National Road Freighters Association has taken a very similar position for its owner-drivers, who are providing long distance transport in some of the toughest places to work in across the country. When you start looking at those people, it just gripes me to think that they say they're so worried about the pressure on households. They said no to 30,000 new social and affordable homes, including for victims of domestic violence. They've said no, more broadly, to better pay and more secure jobs for Australian workers. They've even had Tania Constable, from the Minerals Council of Australia, get up at an inquiry into the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 and say that they were actually paying labour hire workers more money than they were paying direct hire workers. In fact, she said, it was $300 extra a week. But wait a minute. It was only some weeks ago they were saying it was going to cost the mining industry billions of dollars. On the one hand she is putting to everybody that it's $300 better for those workers. On the other hand it's costing billions of dollars. It does not compute. The fact is, with those on the other side, some of the big business that they back in this country—not the good big business but bad business, in the mining industry—are frightened to turn around and call them out for the prejudice that they've brought to the table in this debate. 16:55 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia First and foremost, I want to point out the sheer hypocrisy. The opposition suddenly care about the cost of living now, when they're in opposition. But, in the nine years they were in power, what did we actually see to help everyday Australians? Absolutely nothing. We saw rorts of multiple forms, tax cuts for the rich and leg-ups for the multimillion-dollar companies that they support. I'm glad the opposition finally caught up to the fact that the major parties might actually have to start caring about people, but unfortunately for them it is too late. I hope that they remember, when they come into government again, if they don't have selective amnesia, that it is the everyday Australian that is currently struggling. I really hope that their having brought on this MPI means that this is a sustainable memory for them. I've done a lot of travelling in the past month, especially in Western Australia. One thing that not just shocked but also appalled me was how prices were absolutely so high, particularly the more remote that I went. I'll give you an example. In Roebourne, for a litre of milk today, it costs $7. We wonder why we see an increase in preventable deaths in some of those communities. Prices are forcing people to consume not just what they can find but also what they can afford, which often doesn't add up to your basic healthy diet with fruit and vegetables. There is a lot of processed food, full of sugar, salt and God knows what else out in those communities. This is something that the people are being forced into because of the cost-of-living pressures. This is not the individuals' fault; people are simply doing the best they can to get by. When I talk to people on the ground, they are saying: 'Where do we turn for these solutions? No-one is offering any of those up.' The issue is also with the corporations that are profiting off the cost-of-living crisis. The issue is the major parties uniting to keep people on income support and in poverty. The issue is with the lack of investment in our rural communities right across this country. Of course something needs to be done to help people in this cost-of-living crisis, but I am telling those folks out there watching: Don't be fooled that this MPI today brought on by the coalition means that they will be the ones that deliver the long-term solutions that are actually required to solve this.' They will not be the ones offering up the solutions. They didn't do it while they were in government and they're certainly not going to do it now. 16:58 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The failed Albanese Voice referendum is the latest spit in the face Australians have had to cop from the government. At a time when bills are going up and bank accounts are going backwards, Australians are going to be furious when they hear how much Anthony Albanese's Labor government just wasted on a referendum. All I can say is: brace yourself for the answer. Four hundred and fifty million dollars—that's how much the Australian Electoral Commission is estimating last week's referendum cost. If you woke up with a hangover after some celebrations on the weekend and were scared to check your bank account, spare a moment to think about the Australian Electoral Commission. If their estimates are correct, the AEC have blown their budget for the referendum by nearly $100 million. In the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, Anthony Albanese has blown $450 million, almost half a billion dollars, on his personal vanity project. What did Australians get for this? Australians rightly rejected inserting racial division into the Constitution, with a thumping victory for the 'no' case. Not a single state reached a majority yes. Only the small Canberra territory, the bubble, recorded a 'yes' majority. The 'yes' side spewed divisive, racial, abusive rhetoric while claiming the high moral ground. The country is worse off for being put through this divisiveness, at a huge cost and for a proposal that should never have been put forward. Australia rightly asks: why is this Voice issue distracting government as mortgage payments skyrocket, grocery bills shock budgets and life continues to get tougher? Why was dangerous virtue signalling the government's top priority? Why? I'm saddened to be the one to break the answer to you: this government does not care about you. While I thank the Liberals for bringing on this matter of importance and allowing us to discuss it, they weren't any better in government. Honestly, the Liberals put a wrecking ball through the economy and handed it over to the Labor government in one of the greatest hospital passes in political history, yet Labor doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of navigating us out of this one. Neither the Liberal Party nor the Labor Party can fix the cost-of-living crisis because they're both committed to the UN's net zero pipedream that caused the cost-of-living crisis. This government is committed to net zero by 2050. They may as well be committed to driving us all off a cliff. If we keep going down this path, the number of Australians who can pay their power bills will be next to zero. Australia doesn't have to do this by ourself and find out the hard way. We can learn from many other countries further down this pipedream path than we are. Every other country that's tried to force their power grid onto wind and solar has had their power prices go up by a proportionate amount. When plotted on a graph, it's nearly a straight line heading upwards, and it's all for nothing. The hard data shows that Australians' carbon dioxide production cannot affect the climate above natural variability. The lie that wind and solar are cheaper is easily debunked by fact—this fact: with more wind, solar, batteries and hydro on the grid than ever in our history, power bills have never been higher. It's all a crock designed to fill the pockets of parasitic billionaire wind and solar proponents, fraudulently taking subsidies and donating to people in this Senate who support wind and solar. Australians have already paid billions in subsidies to these billionaire predators and pay again as their power bills skyrocket. Yet Labor, the Liberals and even the fake farmer friends, the Nationals, are all committed to the UN's net zero by 2050. After all the talk about truth telling, here's some cold hard truth: the cost-of-living crisis cannot end until we ditch the United Nations' net zero plans. One Nation is the only party that accepts those facts and can deliver cheaper power bills for Australia, turn the coal fired power generators back on, cut all the subsidies with the parasitic wind and solar industry and just get back to common sense, hard data and truth. 17:02 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I rise today to speak to the fact that the Albanese Labor government has no solutions for the cost-of-living crisis and for the first 16 months of their term in government they have wasted $400 million on an idea that went up in smoke. It was something that the Australian people never asked for and never wanted, and on the weekend they voted a resounding no to the Voice, yet Anthony Albanese and his little narrowminded view of the world thought that we needed to divide this country by race. What a disgrace. What makes it even worse is the fact that we have been going through a cost-of-living crisis, brought about by a COVID overreach, an energy crisis and all of these bad government policies driving up the cost of living, and the Prime Minister's response has been to focus on feelings rather than facts. The facts of the matter are this: the Australian people are doing it tough. They are doing it tough. It's about time we saw the Albanese Labor government provide some solutions for the rental crisis. But what's their solution? Higher immigration, which is all designed to aid and abet the inner-city Marxists who teach at our universities so that our students can come out and graduate brainwashed and bankrupt. They are the only people benefiting from immigration. Of course it might help Labor get a few more votes, because God knows anyone who has lived in this country long enough knows you would never vote Labor if you want to hold onto your hard-earned wages. If they're not stealing it through your taxes, they're stealing it through superannuation, and, if they're not stealing it through superannuation, they're stealing it through higher energy prices. I say that it is about time the Labor government actually started to focus on the thing that matters to the Australian people. That is, they want to keep their hard-earned wages in their pockets. We have a rental crisis, or a housing crisis, brought about by high immigration and an out-of-control RBA whose only solution to anything is to increase the cost of interest. There's no talk about issuing new shares and building new infrastructure to increase the supply of energy, water, transport and better roads. No, no. All they can do is impose austerity upon the Australian people. We have an energy crisis as well. Power prices are through the roof. The Labor government love to blame it on what's going on in Ukraine, but here's the thing: Australia has abundant reserves of coal, gas and nuclear. Why don't we use our own homegrown resources to supply the raw materials needed to produce energy? No, no. The Labor government would rather import renewables built overseas and shut down our own local industries. That is a disgrace. That is an absolute disgrace. We have the cost-of-living crisis compounded by the rental crisis and the energy crisis, and then we have Labor's obsession with red tape, green tape, blue tape and all these fees and costs that everyone has to comply with in order to get any business done in this country. We've seen that with IR laws that are actually going to make it harder to do business. We see that with so many other aspects in the economy where Labor wants to impose command and control over every aspect of an individual's or a business's decision-making process. We could supply more services into the economy, such as more power stations, whether it be coal, gas or nuclear, or build more dams so we can have more water on our beautiful black soil across all parts of Australia, to supply more food, or, heaven forbid, have cheaper energy to restart our manufacturing process. Do Labor want to do anything about that? No. They want to increase the superannuation rate so that workers pay more money to the rent-seeking, white-collar parasites in their ivory palaces in Sydney and Melbourne and other means of doing business as well. 17:07 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory The cost of living is a huge issue in communities across the country. I recently did a survey of almost 2,000 Canberrans, and the cost of living came out as No. 1. It is affecting households and small businesses. We heard this morning from small businesses that they are facing a double whammy, because they are facing increased costs in their small business at the same time that their mortgage is going up. And we know how leveraged many small businesses are. There are a number of things that can be done by the parliament to deal with this. There are solutions. Firstly, we can look at competition. The recent inquiry into Qantas has laid bare the need for better competition laws in this country. Where you've got, in the airline industry, 95 per cent market share between Qantas and Virgin, with Qantas walking away with 80 per cent of the profits, something is wrong. We need to step in and ensure there is more competition. It's not just airlines. That should be the starting point. We've got two grocery chains with 70 per cent market share, three dominant energy retailers, and four major banks with 75 per cent of mortgages. The list goes on. It's a failure of policy to ensure that people are getting a better deal. Housing clearly underpins the cost-of-living crisis. We've seen both major parties not want to talk about what can be done when it comes to housing policy that is set up for housing not to be a human right that people in our communities should be able to afford but to be an investment vehicle. Those have been the rules; people have used them. But we have to turn this ship around. We have to ensure that people in our communities can afford to have a safe place to call home. Another solution is electrification. We know that households and small businesses can save thousands of dollars a year when they electrify. With the cost of fuel going to foreign oil companies, that money can be saved and spent in our local communities. There are solutions ready to go. We need policymakers to step up and put in place policies that ensure that households and small businesses can benefit from electrification and that nobody is left behind. In the US we saw the Inflation Reduction Act—an ambitious wide-ranging policy, with a big part of it focused on electrification and ensuring the gap between electric and fossil fuel is bridged so that people can unlock the savings now rather than in the future. I would urge the government to come up with a bold, comprehensive response to the Inflation Reduction Act. 17:10 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Clearly, to the Australian people, Labor's gig is up. We said before the last election they had no economic plan, and, sadly for our nation, every single day they have demonstrated they still have no economic plan for our nation. Over halfway through their term, what are they doing? The only things they have implemented are policies handed to them by the trade union movement and by the left of the Labor Party—and we've seen that tragically play out in the divisive referendum this nation has just gone through and in the frightening industrial relations legislation they failed to tell the Australian people about before the last election. You have a look at any other policy, and it's not just the absence of an economic policy; they wasted nine years in opposition not developing a single policy. In defence, reviews for nearly two years and no action. In emergency management, a royal commission—an implementable thing straight away; they're still doing two reviews. There has been probably the most criminal lack of action on the NDIS in its history, and nearly two years later they will still be reviewing while the scheme is in trouble. Most importantly for all Australians, in particular Western Australians, this government has no economic plan. It is true—and this government is, sadly, still demonstrating—that under every Labor government over the last 30 years, on average, Labor have delivered higher unemployment, higher interest rates, higher electricity prices and higher taxes—and now higher inflation and cost of living for just about everything for Australian families. And they're sitting there dealing with everything else but the actions that will drive down the cost of living for Australians. In fact, they are pump-priming the economy to make inflation even higher and the cost of living even higher for Australians. Taming inflation should be the government's first, second and third priority, but it is not. Families right across Australia, including in Senator O'Sullivan's and my home state of Western Australia, are doing it incredibly tough. Both Senator O'Sullivan and I have visited Foodbank many times, and it is absolutely heartbreaking to see what is happening. For every single interest rate rise—10 or 11 under Labor—Foodbank sees a significant increase in access to its food supplies. Most importantly and most sadly, over 70 per cent of the people they are now assisting are people who have never had to seek support before; they are two-income families who are absolutely struggling under the cost-of-living pressures this government continues to inflict. This year alone, over 116,000 children in Western Australia live in severely-food-insecure households. There were 208,000 households in Western Australia that went hungry—can you believe this? In Western Australia, over 200,000 households went hungry in the last 12 months due to a lack of money and having to skip meals, sometimes going for days without eating. And 23 per cent of households in Western Australia with mortgages experienced food insecurity in the last year. This is completely and utterly outrageous. It's not only the cost of living and people finding it very difficult to feed their families. The cost of petrol under this government has skyrocketed to, somewhere in WA, over $2 a litre—an increase of over 10 per cent. Many families, and particularly the elderly, are no longer able to use their cars because they cannot afford the cost of petrol. Housing is such an important issue, and it is such a challenging issue for far too many West Australians. Home rental prices in Perth have increased by nearly 20 per cent in the last 12 months alone. That is a complete and utter disgrace. Despite all of the rhetoric from those opposite about homelessness, the number of people sleeping rough in Western Australia has increased by over 100 per cent since Labor came to government. Perth has the tightest vacancy rate, and so it goes, on and on. Western Australians simply cannot afford this Labor government, and shame on you for doing— (Time expired) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 The time for this discussion has expired. DOCUMENTS 72 DOCUMENTS Consideration 72 DOCUMENTS 73 DOCUMENTS National Disability Insurance Scheme, Australia: Bushfires, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water 73 Order for the Production of Documents 73 17:16 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning Indigenous heritage protection laws, the NDIS Financial Sustainability Framework, and bushfire preparedness. 17:16 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the documents. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 73 COMMITTEES Environment and Communications Legislation Committee 73 Membership 73 17:17 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania by leave—I move: That senators be discharged from and appointed to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee as follows: Discharged—Senator Sheldon Appointed— Senator Bilyk Participating member: Senator Sheldon. Question agreed to. BILLS 73 BILLS Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill 2023, Parliamentary Workplace Support Service (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 73

Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill 2023

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

Returned from the House of Representatives 73 COMMITTEES 73 COMMITTEES Intelligence and Security Joint Committee, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Joint Committee 73 Membership 73 BILLS 74 BILLS Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) Bill 2023, Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2023, Export Control Amendment (Streamlining Administrative Processes) Bill 2022, Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Industry Self-Classification and Other Measures) Bill 2023, Customs Legislation Amendment (Controlled Trials and Other Measures) Bill 2022, Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2023, Financial Accountability Regime (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023, Treasury Laws Amendment (Modernising Business Communications and Other Measures) Bill 2023, Parliamentary Workplace Support Service (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023, Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment Bill 2023, Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill 2023, Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Modernisation) Bill 2022, Statute Law Amendment (Prescribed Forms and Other Updates) Bill 2023, Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 3) Bill 2023, Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Law Improvement Package No. 1) Bill 2023, Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards Amendment (Administrative Changes) Bill 2023, International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Amendment Bill 2023, Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023, National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023, Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023, Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme) Bill 2023, Royal Commissions Amendment (Private Sessions) Bill 2023, Social Security Amendment (Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment) Bill 2023 74

Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) Bill 2023

Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2023

Export Control Amendment (Streamlining Administrative Processes) Bill 2022

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

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

Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2023

Financial Accountability Regime (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023

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

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

Members of Parliament (Staff) Amendment Bill 2023

Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Bill 2023

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

Statute Law Amendment (Prescribed Forms and Other Updates) Bill 2023

Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 3) Bill 2023

Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Law Improvement Package No. 1) Bill 2023

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

International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Amendment Bill 2023

Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023

National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023

Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023

Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review Scheme) Bill 2023

Royal Commissions Amendment (Private Sessions) Bill 2023

Social Security Amendment (Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment) Bill 2023

Assent 74 COMMITTEES 74 COMMITTEES Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee 74 Reference 74 17:18 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Before moving the motion I would seek leave to amend it, in the terms circulated in the chamber. Leave granted. Senator CASH I0M I amend the motion and now move the amended motion: The motion was unavailable at the time of publishing. It's not often that you stand in dismay in the Australian Senate, but I do that today. In moving this motion, why do I stand in dismay? Because every Australian parent wants their children to grow up in a safe environment, every man and woman should be entitled to walk the streets in their suburbs without fear, and every family should be free from the misery and pain of drug dependency. The reason I have moved this motion is that these things are under threat in the Australian Capital Territory. It is a very simple motion. All it will do is establish a committee to inquire into and report on the ACT government's concerning laws that come into effect in less than a fortnight. The ACT government's Drugs of Dependence (Personal Use) Amendment Act 2022 will commence formally on 28 October 2023. This is legislation that, by the ACT government's own admission, was rushed through the ACT Legislative Assembly as a private member's bill. Why did they do that? To avoid scrutiny. I say: shame on the ACT government for rushing through the ACT assembly a bill that will have a detrimental impact on not just people in the ACT but, potentially, people throughout Australia. Let's talk about what's going to happen in about two weeks, on 28 October. The Labor-Greens government will roll out the red carpet to the following: ice, heroin, cocaine, speed, acid and other drugs. In my humble opinion, our nation's capital, let alone any other place in Australia, should not be the drug capital of Australia. While the ACT government has decided to move away from scrutiny of this piece of legislation, I personally believe, given its potential implications for the health and safety of both Canberrans and the wider community, that the Australian Senate should undertake the scrutiny of this particular legislation. If the motion is successful, the Senate will investigate the actual, real-life impacts this terrible law will have on residents in the ACT and surrounds and on the broader Australian public. In the first instance, this not unusual. This is not an unusual step for the Australian Senate to take. It is not uncommon for decisions of state and territory governments to be examined, inquired into and reported on by the Australian Senate, so this is not an unusual step. The simple reality is that the ACT government, quite deliberately—this is a conscious decision—is about to unleash a potential impact that goes beyond its borders and thus requires national leadership. It is leadership that the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, and those of us in the Liberal Party and the National Party are prepared to show. In two weeks, what does the ACT actually intend to do? From 28 October, among other things, a person in the ACT will be able to carry up to 1.5 grams of ice, 1.5 grams of cocaine or one gram of heroin without fear of any criminal conviction and without risk of anything more substantial than a small fine. People might say: 'Hold on. What does that actually mean?' Let me put this into a context that perhaps anyone listening in might actually understand. According to the US Department of Justice, one gram of heroin is up to five times the average lethal dose of heroin. The ACT government has already passed the legislation that is actually going to allow that to happen. This is meant to be for personal use. So the ACT government are saying, 'You can lawfully carry one gram of heroin,' but what they don't tell people is that, according to the US Department of Justice, that is up to five times the average lethal dose of heroin. For those who are in any doubt about that, 'lethal dose' means death. You die from taking this dose. For police, the operational issues alone are diabolical. The police have put this on the record. There is no clarity for police as to whether these territory laws are consistent with Commonwealth legislation. What does that actually mean? It leaves the police choosing between potentially conflicting laws—that's great when you are dealing with a potentially lethal dose of heroin!—and potentially facing professional standards investigation for misconduct and failure to execute duties if they apply the wrong one. That's going to help the police, who just want to do their job! There is also no clarity—and this is where Senate scrutiny is required—on whether small quantities of drugs are mixed weight or pure weight. That has potentially a substantial impact. Is it one gram of pure heroin, or can I carry two grams and cut it down by 50 per cent? In any case, how are the police meant to tell this? Will they be walking around carrying scales and purity test kits? What is the actual result? The AFP Deputy Commissioner Gaughan said that when police see someone doing a line of coke: … historically, they may have intervened; they are probably not going to now. Fantastic work, isn't it? That's a great end result of the ACT government's legislation! As ACT Policing described, in a submission to the inquiry, the decriminalisation of drugs does not of itself allow individuals to be connected with a health-led response. There is a real concern that the health services just aren't there. Let's again go back to what's going to happen in two weeks. Senator Scarr 282997 Better and better! Senator CASH I0M It does. It just gets better and better, Senator Scarr. I can now carry one gram of heroin, which is potentially five times the lethal dose, but ACT Policing have said there is a real concern because the health services just aren't there. That is a recipe for complete, total and utter personal disaster in the first instance, but that personal disaster is then going to have flow-on effects to other people. In the meantime, the ACT police have pointed out that drug use can also be a driver of crime. Who would have thought? Quite frankly, blind Freddy could have told the ACT government that drug use is a driver of crime. But, perhaps more importantly, these decriminalised drugs themselves are incredibly harmful. The ACT Law Society themselves have said: … we do not support the decriminalisation of any quantity of ice, given the threat such poses to public safety. They then referenced a position from the Australian Medical Association which said: 1. There is clear medical evidence that methamphetamine, and particularly crystal methamphetamine ('ice'), is a very harmful drug at the individual, community and societal levels. 2. Methamphetamine is not a 'recreational', 'soft' or 'party' drug and should never be referred to as such. Every effort must be made to avoid normalising methamphetamine use or minimising its harmful effects. 3. Acute methamphetamine psychosis is one of the most damaging health consequences of methamphetamine use. Acutely, it presents a major safety issue for health care staff and the intoxicated patient and his or her family. But, because it wasn't subject to scrutiny, guess what? We haven't been able to explore this. But in the first instance I would probably, as a lawmaker, have listened to the Deputy Commissioner of the AFP. I probably would have listened to ACT Policing. I probably would have listened to the ACT Law Society. And I definitely would have listened to the Australian Medical Association. But, for some baffling reason—I say 'baffling' ironically, colleagues—the Labor-Greens government in the ACT has decided it is actually a good idea to release ice onto the streets of Canberra, and that's going to happen in two weeks. We also know—this is evidence again—that ice-induced psychosis leads to violent rages. According to the ACT government's own advice—you've got to love this, because this is their own advice on the dangers associated with ice: High doses of ice and frequent use can cause 'ice psychosis', which can last a few days, causing: severe paranoid delusions and hallucinations unusual, aggressive and violent behaviour Senator Scarr 282997 They've already got it. Senator CASH I0M But not only that; those rages risk the safety and welfare of emergency service workers, health professionals and bystanders. They are the ones who are going to be cleaning up the problem—'That's their problem.'—and the suppliers of these hard drugs, organised crime figures and outlaw motorcycle gangs, will actually be the real beneficiaries of these laws. And guess what? In Canberra now you will pay—I kid you not, colleagues—more for parking across the lines in a shopping centre than if you are caught carrying ice. You will actually pay more for stopping your car near a post box in the ACT than for possessing heroin. Let's just put this into context. Lawyers, police and pharmacists have explicitly warned against these laws. The ACT Law Society has said the ACT drug laws would have a minimal effect on diverting drug users away from the criminal justice system. The AFP have given evidence about cycles of crime that link drug use to offences, including assault, burglary, stolen motor vehicles, theft, justice procedures and firearms. They also gave operational examples of how a similar personal use scheme has been exploited to sell cannabis to Canberra schoolchildren as young as 12 years old. But, despite this evidence, guess what? It slipped through the ACT Legislative Assembly and, in two weeks time, the reality of what I am saying is about to become a fact. Let's have a look at what our pharmacists have said. By any length of it, they are on the front line of addiction and dangerous drug use every day. They have expressly said that the ACT drug laws would be counterproductive to the aim of harm minimisation. As we stand here, all we are asking for is the ability for the Senate to undertake an enquiry into the operational effect of these laws—because, ultimately, it is not the ACT government that is going to pay for this bad law; the people I have referred to are going to. But let's look at other potential effects and the people who will actually pay for the ACT government's cavalier approach to drug policy. The first group will be people who travel down the Hume Highway hoping to experience in two weeks time the ACT's party lifestyle. For many, it will end in addiction and heartache and for some it will end in death. The second group who will pay are the first responders, the emergency responders and the bystanders. They are the ones who will have to clean up the mess. The final group who will pay are the families. I have been personally contacted by families in the ACT who have lost children because they overdosed on drugs. They are the final group who will pay. In my humble opinion, it is only misery that can result from this terrible new law. All we are asking for is for the Senate to have the ability to undertake a review, for the reasons that I have set out. In two weeks time drugs will be legal in those amounts in the ACT. I believe the Australian Senate has a responsibility to review the impact, the scope and the issues that will come for the police, for families and other first responders. I would hope that all of us in the Senate can unite in that regard and support the motion. 17:34 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales It is shameful for the opposition, for the shadow Attorney-General, to so grossly misrepresent laws that have been passed by the ACT Legislative Assembly and to so grossly misrepresent the process that the ACT Legislative Assembly went through in passing those laws. We have just heard such an extraordinary misinformation rant on this bill from the shadow Attorney-General. It does no credit to the opposition and in fact it causes direct harm to those people who have in good faith engaged with the evidence, engaged with their elected representatives and passed laws in the ACT Legislative Assembly that all the experts say will significantly reduce harm from illegal drugs. All the experts say that. Again, we get the opposition here trying to override territorians' right to self-government. They don't like what the ACT does— Opposition senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Order, Senator Shoebridge; resume your seat. Senators on my left, standing order 197 says it's disorderly to interrupt a speaker on their feet. In a democracy people have a right to a different point of view, and this chamber should be the exemplar of that. Senator Shoebridge, you have the call. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 Thanks, Acting Deputy President. The coalition doesn't like what territorians have done. They don't like the fact that the people of the ACT have fundamentally rejected the coalition's failed war on drugs and have instead listened to the experts on addiction and illegal drugs. They've spoken with the overwhelming majority of the legal profession whose job it has been, up to now, to so mismanage the possession of illegal drugs. They've listened to the evidence and they've changed the law—not, as the shadow Attorney-General would suggest, to make it legal to have illegal drugs in the ACT. No. It's a decriminalisation path. If people are found with personal use quantities of drugs, the drugs are confiscated and a civil penalty is issued. Did you ever hear that from the shadow Attorney-General in her rant? No, because it's inconvenient to their post-fact view of the world. Did you hear the shadow Attorney-General mention the five days of hearings that the ACT Legislative Assembly had on this? The committee accepted submissions from across the ACT and had five days of hearings on the bill. They heard from the public in Canberra and the ACT, and they overwhelmingly supported these changes. Did you hear that from the shadow Attorney? No, because that's an inconvenient fact. The shadow Attorney-General then comes up and says, 'The Senate must have an inquiry.' Surely if you're going to make that kind of claim you do your research, at least, and if you do your research you speak the truth about this. The ACT Legislative Assembly had five days of hearings for the inquiry into this. They received over 50 submissions and hundreds and hundreds of survey responses, and the people of the ACT overwhelmingly backed in this reform. But that's too democratic for the coalition, isn't it? They hate the idea of self-government in the ACT. This is not the first time they've tried to overturn the ACT as it takes through progressive laws. We saw the same on the euthanasia bill, desperately trying to overturn self-government in the ACT. Now they're trying the same trick; they're trying the same deeply undemocratic attack on the groundbreaking law reform on drugs of dependence. I think I know the thing that's really getting the coalition here, the thing that's keeping them awake at night. The thing about the recent law reform in the ACT that's making them wake up in a cold sweat of fear is that these laws are going to work. Getting away from the endless, losing, life-destroying war on drugs, which stops people getting treatment, criminalises addiction and has failed in every jurisdiction it's been tried in—when the ACT steps away from that with a decriminalisation model, it's actually going to work. That's what is really getting the coalition so hot under the collar here—that this is actually going to work. When we heard the lies that the ACT government has not put in place additional funding for addiction and drug dependence, again, it does the coalition no credit. First of all, you have to realise there was a five-day inquiry. Then you have to read the report from the inquiry. Then you have to read the government's response to the inquiry. None of that has been done by the coalition, who try to pretend there hasn't been an inquiry. But, when you read the ACT government's response to the inquiry, one of the recommendations was that the ACT government should significantly increase its investment in alcohol and other drug services. Absolutely they should, and my Greens colleagues in the ACT have absolutely been pressing for this investment for years and years. Now it is actually happening. People who have addiction are getting more services to have their addiction treated. They're not being put into jail. They're not being dragged through the courts. They're not being treated like a criminal because they have an addiction. They're actually going to get the treatment they need. That's what the ACT is doing, and that's what the coalition hates. They want to see money spent on courts, police and jails and not on opiate treatments, not on addiction treatments and not on drug and alcohol treatments. How has that gone? How many lives has that destroyed? How many more lives do you want to see destroyed? This is what the ACT government has agreed to. I'll read from their response: The Government has invested nearly $20 million in new funding for drug treatment and harm reduction services through the 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 Budgets, supporting implementation of the ACT Drug Strategy Action Plan 2018-2021. This includes: •   expanding the capacity of Canberra Health Services' drug diversion service; •   expanding drug treatment capacity at the Alexander Maconochie Centre; •   increasing funding for distribution of the opioid overdose reversal drug naloxone and sterile injecting equipment to reduce harms from drug use; •   increasing funding to the alcohol and other drug treatment and support service sector to provide treatment services to the ACT Drug and Alcohol Court; •   joint funding of a mobile clinic operated by Directions Health Services to provide alcohol and drug, mental health and primary care services to disadvantaged community groups; and •   establishing a northside Opioid Maintenance Treatment Clinic. They've also established a national first with a permanent pill testing service, and they even managed to squeeze $4.3 million out of the federal government to provide some of these services and additional services. When you take resources away from police, courts and jails when it comes to people who have an addiction and a health problem, you free up resources to deal with addiction—to keep families together, to provide alternative options and to give people a pathway out of their addiction, rather than jail them, take their jobs, take their hope and force people down a pathway of addiction. That's what the ACT government is doing. This mob is a bunch of 1950s war-on-drugs types. Some of them might be Nixon war-on-drugs types. Some of them might have dragged themselves into the early 1970s. That mob think the answer to addiction is putting people in jail. What an absolute disgrace. Not only do they want to jail people because they have a health problem; they also want to tear down self-government in the ACT and they want to do it all in the one motion. What a disgrace. This motion should never have been brought. The coalition needs to drag itself into the 21st century and realise two things. Who best decides the future of the ACT? People in the ACT, the ACT assembly, who went through good process, had an inquiry and backed in their laws. What should we be doing with drugs of addiction and the health and social concerns that come out of drugs of addiction? Treat it like a health problem. Invest the money where we save the most lives. Don't put people in jail for addiction. If you look at what the coalition have done over the last 12 months, the last five years, every chance they've had to drag this country backwards, they've taken. They tear down the hopes of First Nations justice reforms. They were willing to run deeply offensive, fact-free attacks on refugees. Now they're playing the ugly politics of trying to criminalise people because they have an addiction. Well, shame on them. The Greens will never support that. We won't support this inquiry. We back in what the ACT government has done with the support of the ACT people, and we call on the coalition to grow a heart, to grow a brain and to stop with this nonsense. 17:46 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I've already got a heart; I don't need to grow a heart. Let me tell you what puts me into a cold sweat. Every single senator here should go back to their office, go on YouTube, put in 'Tenderloin area, San Francisco' and have a look at the dystopian nightmare of the policies which are advocated for by Senator Shoebridge and the Greens. Don't worry, I'll be reminding every Queenslander in the lead-up to the next federal election and the next state election in Queensland that the Greens support the decriminalisation of methamphetamine, ice et cetera. Thank you very much, Senator Shoebridge, I've got that on the record. Go on to YouTube and have a look at the dystopian nightmare in San Francisco and tell me that that is progressive and that is a forward-thinking— Government senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Order! Senator Scarr, resume your seat. Senators on my right, I preserved your right to speak without interruption because in a democracy people are allowed to have different views and our standing orders mean that they can be heard in silence. Senator Scarr. Senator SCARR 282997 Thank you very much, Mr Acting Deputy President. I only need to do a short amount of research to see the issues with the advocacy of the sorts of policies that Senator Shoebridge advocated for. I suggest to Senator Shoebridge—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President—that he looks at a research article from the Portland State University, hardly a cesspit of far-right thinking, the Impacts of Successive Drug Legislation Shifts: Qualitative Observations from OreganLaw Enforcement. Oregon introduced exactly this same policy. What does this study suggest happened? This is what the research says: In 2021, M110 decriminalized possession of controlled substance (PCS), and effectively downgraded certain quantities of PCS from a misdemeanour to a E-violation (i.e., a citation), resulting in a maximum $100 fine or a completed health assessment. This is exactly sort of policy the ACT government is embarking upon. This is what they found. In its first point, the executive summary says: As a result of M110, officers have less cause to search, which they note has affected their ability to make arrests for "collateral crimes" that often could accompany a possession crime (e.g., weapons offense, stolen property). That was the first point. The second point the research indicated was the loss of informants. According to officers, reclassifying PCS as a violation also negatively impacted their ability to cultivate confidential informants. Why? Because there's nothing to bargain. Why would you become an informant? It doesn't matter; you're just getting a fine, as Senator Cash said, that's less than a parking fine. Why would you be an informant? So what does that do? That protects the gangs, the organised criminals, who are importing the prescribed substances into the ACT. The third theme, decreases in proactive policing, says: Many officers noted that the state's lack of interest in drug crimes has promoted the decrease in proactivity. The shifting of roles from proactive to more reactive, response-based policing, is perceived to be having a negative impact on officer morale and motivation. Why would you be a police officer in that environment? The problem for this chamber is that it is the Australian Federal Police through their community service arm who have the obligation to actually enforce these laws. These laws are inextricably linked to the Australian Federal Police, which is created by statute by this parliament. Theme 4 is the perceived lack of accountability. It states: The most common theme officers discuss is a perception of lack of accountability for defendants and individuals in possession of drugs … Why get help? Nothing is going to force you to get help. It's all carrot and no stick. Why get help? Theme 5 is hesitancy to issue citations. It states: Although there was variability, most of the officers in jurisdictions we talked to commented that they had given out few or no … citations. That's under the Oregon law. Why would you bother? Why would you bother doing the paperwork? That is what is happening in Oregon—exhibit A. What's happening in San Francisco? Let's read some of the articles. It's the San Francisco model that the Labor-Greens government in the ACT wants to import to Canberra. The 'City by the bottom' summer 2023 article states: People from all districts have lost faith in San Francisco's governance. A 2023 … Research survey found that the majority of San Franciscans (57 percent) have an unfavorable view of the mayor, and 73 percent believe that the city is on the wrong track. …   …   … Officials need to listen to what law-abiding citizens want and stop catering to radical groups like the Coalition on Homelessness, which has made it nearly impossible to get people off the street and into shelter. The city needs to provide people suffering from mental illness and addiction with real care, not ever more radical harm-reduction methods … No one wants to shop (or work) in stores and malls that are being looted, or to patronize restaurants and bars with outdoor areas filled with human waste—and wasted humans. That's what's happening in San Francisco. Senator Shoebridge is talking about harm reduction et cetera. This is what is happening on the ground in San Francisco. The article entitled 'The encampment state' states: This past December, a San Francisco toddler overdosed on fentanyl, after coming into contact with it while playing in a park … "[a]nother kid across the street collected syringe caps and floated them down the stream of dirty gutter water for fun." That is the sort of dystopian future those sorts of policies lead to. The evidence is there. You only have to look at San Francisco. Go back to your office and put 'San Francisco Tenderloin district' into YouTube and see what comes up. It is an absolute dystopian nightmare. In the Sacramento Bee an op-ed from a local sheriff and a district Attorney in California talks about the departure of major businesses from San Francisco. It states: The departure of Nordstrom, Whole Foods and other retailers from San Francisco may not be the most critical data point on this issue, but we believe these events demonstrate that no one, regardless of socioeconomic status, is immune from the quality of life deterioration that our communities are experiencing due to homelessness. Our once-great cities are being hollowed out. That is the practical impact of these policies. It states: Several large Democratic states have low homelessness rates, such as New Jersey, Maryland, Michigan and Illinois. We believe there is a reason for this: All these states have much stronger hard drug laws than California. In our opinion, fentanyl, heroin and other hard drug addictions—and the associated mental health crises that these drugs sometimes entail—are the root cause of California's homeless crisis. That is the practical impact of the implementation of the policies that the ACT government is rolling out. It absolutely astounds me that the ACT government would go down this path. To some extent they have self-government, so to some extent, sure, it's their democratic choice, but it's going to have an impact on all of Australia. The ACT is not island in Australia. It's going to have an impact on everyone in this country, including upon the Australian Federal Police who have the community policing obligation. There are also a number of other points which are raised in the reference to my committee, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which I chair. Questions were raised with respect to the interaction with Commonwealth law, including the application of ACT laws to other territories, aircraft and seagoing vessels. Those are real issues about the impact these laws will have in relation to aircraft and seagoing vessels. So there are lots of issues in relation to this. There are many issues. As Senator Cash said, think about the impact on social services. Senator Shoebridge talks about recovery services et cetera as if it's an unlimited pool, but when you adopt this policy what is going to happen in the ACT, and what would happen in any part of Australia, is what has happened overseas—the services cannot keep up. Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, you cannot keep up and all you're doing, all that this sort of approach achieves, is to cause absolute misery to those workers on the frontline—our emergency services workers, our hospital workers and paramedics—who have to deal with the human carnage as a result of these policies. The evidence is there. I'm absolutely astounded that the ACT government would go down this path. 17:56 Senator 122087 Northern Territory McCARTHY (—) (): The government opposes this motion. Unlike those opposite, we believe in territory rights and we respect the rights of territorians to determine the laws, policies and programs under which they're governed. This is a matter for the ACT assembly, a parliament that has been democratically elected by the people of the ACT. We come to this place to debate national matters that concern the Commonwealth of Australia, and of course we take the matter of tackling illicit drugs seriously, but this particular bill was passed through the ACT Legislative Assembly in October 2022. If this was anything other than a stunt, we would have heard about the opposition's concerns a year ago. This is yet another blatant attempt by the opposition to limit territory rights and interfere with ACT self-government. Even the ACT opposition leader has rejected this motion as a blatant attempt to limit territory rights. The ACT opposition leader, Ms Lee, has said: The Canberra Liberals will always stand up for territory rights and I am very concerned about any step to diminish that.    …   …   … I do not agree with this action taken by the federal Coalition to seek to overturn legislation that was passed by the ACT Assembly. An honourable senator interjecting— Senator McCARTHY 122087 Would you like me to repeat that? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Order! Senator McCARTHY 122087 The ACT opposition leader, Ms Lee, has said: The Canberra Liberals will always stand up for territory rights and I am very concerned about any step to diminish that.    …   …   … I do not agree with this action taken by the federal Coalition to seek to overturn legislation that was passed by the ACT Assembly. These are important matters for the community, but they are not the responsibility of the federal parliament. If Senator Cash and others are determined to get involved in ACT politics, well, you're very welcome to go down the road and deal directly with the issue in the place where it belongs. 17:58 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I too rise to support incredibly strongly, about as strong as I possibly could, this referral. I've listened to a lot of hyperbole and rhetoric from those opposite, but I've got to say the debate on this absolutely takes the cake. I want to read out what the motion actually says, because there are almost no words, which is actually pretty hard sometimes. I might put it this way: if you've got nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Those opposite and those on the crossbench are generally the first ones in line to argue transparency and to argue for Senate inquiries so that truth and information can come out. Let's have a look at how this motion actually reads, and then I'd like to deal with some of it in a bit more detail: That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee … The Australian Capital Territory Government's Drugs of Dependence (Personal Use) Amendment Act 2022, with particular reference to: (a) operational issues that arise for police; (b) the potential risks posed to police, ambulance officers and other first responders; (c) the types and quantities of drugs permitted to be dealt with by the simple drug offence notice scheme; (d) the interaction with Commonwealth law … (e) the views of families who have lost loved ones to addiction and overdose … It is inconceivable to those on this side of the chamber how Labor or the Greens or anybody else in this chamber could possibly argue against an inquiry into those matters. It is not about territory rights. With wall-to-wall Labor governments on mainland Australia, this Senate inquiry is incredibly important because once one Labor government implements legislation like this you can be sure that all other Labor state and territory governments will start to implement this. My colleague Senator Cash has very articulately said why this is such a bad law. Senator Scarr also talked about the actual experiences in the United States of communities who have implemented similar freedoms from restrictions on drugs. Let's have a look at what law enforcement here in the ACT have said about this change due to come in in two weeks. The Chief Police Officer in the ACT has said—and I'm going to read out word for word what he said, because I want everybody in this place to really understand the implications on police, emergency services and health workers: We legalised cannabis in 2021, and there was a 20 per cent increase in usage, so it's safe to assume we are going to see an increase in other drug usage, and Canberra already has a fairly strong use of cocaine per head of population. The nation will be watching us—we are the first to go this far. But, as I've said, they will not be the last government on mainland Australia to do this. Here in the ACT you will be allowed 1.5 grams, which is 15 hits, which costs about $1,500. Not many users themselves will have that amount of money. This could actually see other crimes. Meth, or ice, as we all know in this place, is highly addictive. The worry is people will go on four- or five-day meth benders, go out on a drive and kill someone. That is a very real threat. The Chief Police Officer also said that last year here in the ACT they had 18 people die—a 300 per cent increase on the rolling average—and most of those people had meth or cannabis in their system. The Chief Police Officer said he was also worried that the ACT might turn out to be like San Francisco, Portland and Vancouver, where personal use of hard drugs has also been relaxed. Senator Scarr has just given us some detail from inquiries and reports into those areas, and it is truly alarming. The Chief Police Officer here in the ACT had also been over to have a look at those experiences, and he said, 'From what I saw over there in February this year, it is not working.' And not only is it not working; what he saw was not pretty. He said he saw, in the States: … people smoking crack in the streets, and the cops are turning a blind eye to that usage. Cops are walking around giving people a nudge to make sure they are not dead … A city like San Francisco has entire blocks that are literally no-go zones. Whole neighbourhoods are boarded up with people walking around zombified. Ahead of the change, he also told a newspaper this week that it would be: … naive not to think people won't come down, even for a weekend, to get on the coke and not worry about the cops … it's a reality we can't ignore. The experience in North America demonstrates that his concerns are absolutely valid. He also outlined the possibility that methamphetamine use could result in an increase in the road toll and that violence could increase between organised criminals, including bikie gangs, in a bid to capture a share of a rapidly expanding drug market here in the ACT. He also acknowledged that, to be honest, we just don't know what will happen, but clearly it will not be positive for people in the ACT. The Federal Police commissioner, Commissioner Kershaw, also made the point in a federal government parliamentary inquiry that it could well lead to narco-tourism: It's going to mean that organised crime will want to target this community in particular because they can move their product quite easily— in and out of the Australian Capital Territory— It just makes it more difficult for us to combat the rise of cocaine, methamphetamine and heroin use. They're not recreational drugs. We all know it is very rare for police officers to speak out so openly, but Commissioner Kershaw has extensive experience and he has made a call that these drugs are incredibly dangerous for the community. Let's also have a look at what the Police Federation of Australia chief Scott Weber has said about this legislation. He's also called it an absolute disaster, and he's echoed concerns from the police and community ahead of the legislation coming into effect in two weeks. A couple of weeks ago, Mr Weber told the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement that community, health and police services were not adequately prepared for the change here in the ACT. For all of the huffing and puffing, the moralising and the accusations that we on this side of the parliament don't want to provide mental health support and other supports to people who are addicted to hard and serious drugs—of course we do, and that is one of the main reasons this legislation is so appalling. It will make more people addicted to drugs, it will increase mental health problems and it will decrease law and order. The police have been very clear about that. The Police Federation of Australia chief also said: It's going to be a drain on resources for not only policing but the community as a whole. The health system is already struggling. We've seen that through COVID. This is just another facet that's going to put more pressure on the— health system, which under Labor, here in the ACT, is already struggling. They also made a point about narco-tourism, which has now occurred in the three North American cities that we've talked about. The evidence is very clear. He also talked about what's going to happen to Canberra. In the future: You don't fly down to Canberra to see the nation's capital for the art gallery and the museums and everything Canberra has to offer; you fly down there— or drive down the Hume Highway— for a party, to get on illicit drugs because it's more readily available— much easier to obtain— and, if you do get caught with 1.5 grams, you're not going to have a criminal record— In fact, you'd get less of a fine than if you parked in the wrong place in the Parliamentary Triangle. For all of these reasons, there is nothing to be afraid of having in having an inquiry into the impacts that this will have on policing, health, mental health programs and families here in the ACT. It is not about territory rights. This is about understanding what impact relaxing these drug laws will have in this instance in this jurisdiction. But mark our words on this side of the chamber: once it comes into effect in the ACT, there will be a conga line of Labor governments, with the support of the Greens, looking to introduce these laws, which will only make our communities less safe and create more mental health problems and more law-and-order problems. It will be much harder for our police—federal and state—to enforce drug laws at the borders. For all these reasons, I would urge all colleagues in this place to support this referral to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee. 18:10 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Less than a year ago, this Senate voted, just based on the voices—it didn't even go to a vote—to repeal the Andrews bill. After a 25-year campaign from the territories to restore our territory rights, the Senate voted unanimously to restore those. Less than a year later, we're seeing Senator Cash trying to renege on that and introduce her own Andrews bill to override the rights of territorians to have their elected legislative assembly make laws for them. I find this bill also quite disrespectful to the Canberra Liberals. I would love to know if Senator Cash consulted with the ACT Leader of the Opposition, Elizabeth Lee, on this bill before introducing it. Has Senator Cash seen the letter from Ms Lee sent to the President and the opposition asking this chamber to respect territory rights? What's going on here when we have the Canberra Liberals urging their federal colleagues to stay out of the ACT's business and allow Ms Lee to be the Leader of the Opposition in the ACT? We see this federal overreach disregarding what the Canberra Liberals would like and saying: 'We know best. We know better than the people of the ACT.' Even the Australian Federal Police Association have told me that they believe it is an issue for the ACT Legislative Assembly. If Senator Cash has any respect for our democratic system, for Canberrans and for people in the ACT, she will withdraw this motion and withdraw this bill. Senator Cash may say that she just wants a review. Then why has she introduced a bill to invalidate the laws? Senator Chandler 264449 It's a motion. It's not a bill. Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Saying, 'We just want to review,' is a misrepresentation of what she is seeking, when she has introduced a bill as well. I would like her today to also rule out any challenge to voluntary assisted dying laws in the Australian Capital Territory. Territorians fought for 25 years to have the Andrews bill repealed. We now have the opportunity to debate and legislate on voluntary assisted dying. I would like Senator Cash and the federal opposition to rule out trying to again reach into the territory's affairs in the future. It seems like this is a precursor to doing just that—to interfering in our democracy here in the ACT. If the federal opposition would like to have a say on ACT matters, it should focus on supporting its own party in the ACT ahead of the 2024 election. That probably starts with listening to what they want to be able to campaign on and allowing Leader of the Opposition Elizabeth Lee to lead her party without the interference of her federal colleagues. 18:13 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales I guess the first thing we should clarify—because there seems to be a complete lack of understanding in this chamber at the moment—is that what Senator Cash proposed is a motion. It's not a bill. It's got nothing to do with territory rights. It's a motion to set up an inquiry. Remember when those opposite were all about transparency? We know that was just all talk before an election, but we have seen Senator Pocock also claim that he wanted transparent government, and the Greens purport to want transparent government. But we know that, given any opportunity to block an inquiry proposed by the coalition, they will team up—team Greens and Pocock with the Labor Party—and oppose any inquiry that might shine a light in the dark places of the policy agenda that they're pushing forward. These ACT government laws are extremely concerning. They are incredibly concerning laws that will be in effect in less than a fortnight. We know that the ACT government down in London Circuit just want you to believe that these laws aren't uncontroversial—'nothing to see here'—but they really do bring under threat the ability of our kids to grow up in safe environments. They bring into doubt the safety that we all take for granted in walking the streets without concern, worry or fear. It's a feeling that a lot of people overseas and internationally have—that the safety that we have in our streets is something that many nations and many communities would aspire to—yet those in the ACT now seem to be set and intent on a way to make people in Canberra feel less safe in their own city. I think there is a lack of willingness, particularly from the Labor government, but what should we expect, though? The fact is that they are dismissing this out of hand, with zero regard for those families who have expressed concern, those families that have lost children to drug addiction and those families who have got children battling drug addiction, and the fact is that they have no interest in hearing from those families in Canberra and what impacts this could have on them and the children that they may have who are dealing with addiction or how it makes them feel, having lost children to drug overdoses. But these are the things that the ALP and, of course, the ACT ALP-Greens government are completely blind to. The ACT government's Drugs of Dependence (Personal Use) Amendment Act 2022 will commence on 28 October, and it was just rushed through the territory Legislative Assembly as a private member's bill to avoid any real scrutiny. I note that Senator Shoebridge, in his contribution, said that the inquiry that had apparently been held by the ACT government showed that there was 100 per cent support from everyone. Everyone thought this was a cracking idea. If we went back and checked the Hansard, we would see he said there was 100 per cent, because I particularly remember Senator Brockman calling out: 'Really—100 per cent? Wow, that's extraordinary.' So, if they are so confident of this 100 per cent support, why are they afraid of an inquiry? Let these experts come and tell us, after rolling out the red carpet with drug cocktails—ice, heroin, cocaine, speed, acid and other drugs—upon arrival. Obviously, this is the way the Greens do their national conference: roll out the green carpet and hand out the drugs. As an aside, I used to love going out with Senator Heffernan, when it was time for election day, to a polling booth. He used to go and helpfully suggest to those on the booth working for the Greens that he'd help them hand out, at which point he would walk around handing out their how-to-vote cards, suggesting free drugs for everyone. It's funny they used to get a bit upset about that, but it turns out that Bill was pretty much on the money, as he so often was. But why would our national's capital be so eager to garner the reputation of being Australia's drug capital? Why would they want that as their moniker? This selfish and ill-conceived policy doesn't consider the implications of their drug laws filtering into the adjacent states. I say that as a New South Wales senator. New South Wales police have voiced concerns in the past with cannabis legislation in the ACT. It would set up the drug trade to filter into New South Wales, making New South Wales drug policing all the more difficult. Despite the ACT government running from scrutiny, we just shouldn't do it in the federal setting. Senator Shoebridge 169119 And it didn't happen. What about the fact it didn't happen Senator HUGHES 273828 Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, perhaps we could have some order at the end of the chamber. The courtesy was granted to Senator Shoebridge to be heard in silence. It would be helpful for him to return the favour. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Senator Hughes, please take your seat. The ACTING DEP UTY PRESIDENT 10000 Order! I've called the chamber to order, Senator Shoebridge. I ask that you remain in silence and give the senator the opportunity to speak in silence, as you were given when you were speaking. Senator HUGHES 273828 Maybe someone is looking for one of those downers! In two weeks, you'll be able to legally carry it. Senator Shoebridge 169119 It just didn't happen. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Senator Shoebridge, you are now disregarding the order I've given. Senator HUGHES 273828 Senator Shoebridge, are you finished? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 No, Senator Hughes, direct your comments through me, please. Senator HUGHES 273828 We can see from them, obviously, that they're all going to buddy up together again to ensure that there's no transparency, and I think that that is just a continuation of the appalling behaviour that we have seen from this Labor-Greens-Pocock alliance. In the past decade there have been inquiries to look at these sorts of legislative issues that come via the territories. In fact, only recently an inquiry was undertaken, at the behest of Senator Pocock, into the management of feral horses in the Australian Alps. He was pretty keen for us to push that one forward. In fact, that was his idea. But, whoa, now it's trampling on Canberrans' rights, the ACT's rights. There is an inquiry into the Commonwealth Games cancellation, and there was one on the need for nationally consistent approaches to alcohol fuelled violence. It doesn't take much thought power to see that, on its face alone, the ACT is about to unleash something that goes well beyond its borders and, as such, requires national leadership, federal scrutiny and possible intervention. So, to the details: what does this bill actually entail? Among other things, this bill allows a person to carry 1½ grams of ice, 1½ grams of cocaine or a gram of heroin without fear of any criminal conviction or punishment more than a small fine. These aren't recreational drugs we're talking about here. These are highly addictive, life-altering, psychosis-inducing, family-destroying drugs that this government wants to allow people to access without concern. In fact, the ACT government seems to think that to deal with people's addiction and the incarceration that could possibly flow on from that addiction you actually just reduce the punishment, because how could these poor people be punished for being deeply addicted to an illicit substance? That's aside from the fact of personal use, recreational use. People have free will and that must be respected, and they have to live with their choices. But we should provide supports and frameworks to help people break the cycle of drug use and addiction which could lead to imprisonment. And we shouldn't remove in total the carriage of justice because of this. In fact, we need to step up and make sure that we are working with the people who are utilising these substances, instead of risking the release of both the revolting and the criminal. You're enticing young people who are still developing mentally to succumb to peer pressure. As we know, teenagers and young people like to try things. You are now opening up the door to allow them to try drugs without the fear of punishment that would normally be there. We do know that one gram of heroin is up to five times the average lethal dose. I assume that the ACT government is going to have some sort of warning. I don't know; maybe it could be like on cigarette packets. Their little baggies with their gram of heroin could say it is five servings, five doses, to make sure people know not to take the whole hit at the one time. I assume there'll be a drug use guide going out in the ACT to say that, whilst it may be one gram for personal use, it is potentially five times a fatal dose. Let's hope that these people aren't trying it for the first time and thinking, 'Well, if the ACT government tells me one gram is okay for personal use, it must be okay for me to use the whole whack in one go.' How will we know? The police are going to be dealing with this. I think the other interesting thing—as we hear a lot of smug and derogatory comments from those at the end of the chamber— Senator HUGHES 273828 will be what we hear from them when we start to see a spike in criminal activity in the ACT, an increase in crimes like burglary, theft and car break-ins. People who want to have that gram of heroin or 1½ grams of ice for personal use quite often don't have the cash for it just lying around. In opening up the doors and increasing this level of access, we're going to see an increase in the level of crime so that they can access the drugs they can then legally carry around. It will be interesting to hear whether or not those opposite, particularly those who represent people in the ACT, have any concerns when the crime rate goes up. Of course, there will be no causation between their open and free drug policies and increases in crime! It would be interesting, too, to know what they think the benefit is. What's the upside for them here? Does anyone know what the upside is? We know from examples overseas that there have been nothing but downsides for those communities who have liberalised any of their drug policies. Just to reiterate what Senator Scarr said, I've heard from friends who used to live in San Francisco about the state of the place now. In fact, when you go into a hotel—and there are fewer of them in San Francisco because the tourism market has basically gone—you walk through something to clean the bottom of your shoes like for foot-and-mouth disease. Because there's now so much human faeces on the streets of San Francisco you have to clean your shoes going into hotels. It's absolutely disgraceful. It's heartbreaking. It was such a beautiful city and it's now a complete and utter basket case. It has been driven by Democratic governments over there and their liberal policies around social issues such as drugs. The AMA in particular—I'm sure one of the 100 per cent that were supportive at the inquiry—said: 1. There is clear medical evidence that methamphetamine, and particularly crystal methamphetamine ('ice') is a very harmful drug at the individual, community and societal levels. 2. Methamphetamine is not a 'recreational', 'soft' or 'party' drug and should never be referred to as such. Every effort must be made to avoid normalising methamphetamine use or minimising its harmful effects. 3. Acute methamphetamine psychosis is one of the most damaging health consequences of methamphetamine use. Acutely, it presents a major safety issue for health care staff and the intoxicated patient and his or her family. Ice induces psychosis, paranoid delusions and hallucinations, severe aggression and violent behaviour. I also hope that those opposite, who are going to team up together to stop this inquiry going forward, don't cry and talk about what happens if a nurse or a doctor is attacked in hospital whilst someone is having an ice psychosis episode whilst walking around carrying their 1½ grams of ice without any impact whatsoever. It is absolutely disgraceful the contempt that is being demonstrated towards the police, the ambulance services and the frontline health services, like doctors and nurses in public hospitals. It's all so that you can claim that you are somehow liberalising and supporting recreational drug use. It's just an insult to everybody, and people know it. This is about an inquiry. If there's 100 per cent support then what are they afraid of? Maybe they should welcome the inquiry. One hundred per cent of people are going to turn up and say: 'Yay. It's great. Free drugs for everyone'—Heffo was on the mark. I think that's probably not what people are going to say. People are going to say that there are huge risks here and lots of risks for those I just mentioned—the police, the ambulance officers, the doctors and the nurses at the forefront. I want to say something to the parents who look at these things in Canberra and really do fear for their children. I have just been accused of being from the 50s—or whatever insult those at the other end of the chamber who are intellectually bereft have come up with. I'm a parent of teenagers. I know many of us have kids. We worry about these things. We don't want our kids to have access to these drugs, particularly these synthetic drugs. They are dangerous and unknown. They have been shown to have lifelong ramifications. They have life-ruining impacts not only for the child, the teenager or young person who takes these drugs but also for their family. There's the total contempt of those opposite, who continue to buddy up with the Greens and David Pocock in their alliance. They show contempt for those families. Shame on you. It's an absolute shame, but then again what else could we expect from this mob? 18:28 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia For those waiting in the chamber, I'll make only a brief contribution on this matter. I'll take a slightly different approach not in substance or outcome but in terms of the content of my contribution. I think it's really important to dispense with this idea that this is somehow an attack on ACT self-government. We heard that from the Labor government here today. We heard that from Senator David Pocock. I don't think we heard it directly from Senator Shoebridge, but he certainly interjected it. This has got absolutely nothing to do with ACT self-government. The fact is that we live in a federation, and I think it's fair to say that in this place I'm probably one of the strongest defenders of the federal system of government that we have. I'm a believer in federation. I'm a believer in the idea that the states and the territories have rights and responsibilities. But the rights and responsibilities that flow to a territory are different—they're different in substance and in practical effect—from those that flow to states and are held by states under our Constitution, and that is something that is very important to remember. The presence of this place in this city is important. We are the federal parliament. We sit as a body within the ACT, the Australian Capital Territory. Not only do we have the responsibility to make sure that what happens within the ACT is of benefit to all Australians; we have an obligation to do that as the senior parliament in this nation. The idea that, because the ACT is self-governing and has a parliament, we now just turn our eyes away from the ACT and pretend that, when we come to this place as the Parliament of Australia, we somehow do not exist within the ACT, with special responsibility for the ACT, is an absolute nonsense. It's a legal nonsense and a complete fiction. What we're trying to do here today, contrary to some of the words you've heard from those opposite, is not to abrogate any power; it is to hold an inquiry. When this government came into power, it talked a lot about transparency and openness. We certainly hear that rhetoric a lot from the others on the crossbench. The Greens and Senator David Pocock, in particular, often talk about the importance of holding inquiries and transparency. As Senator Hughes quite rightly pointed out, when it suits them they're quite happy to have inquiries on matters that impact territory governance, but, when it doesn't suit them, suddenly it's attacking territory rights. It's somehow abrogating the role of self-government in the ACT. This is just a nonsense. The people making that argument know it's a nonsense when they stand up in this place and make that claim. This body, the Senate, has constitutional authority to hold an inquiry of this sort and, given the nature of the matters under discussion, I believe we have an obligation to hold an inquiry. The ACT is a special jurisdiction. It is the home of our Defence Force and our intelligence agencies. It is the place which the governance of Australia is, in large degree, managed from. The idea that laws such as these don't have serious implications at the Commonwealth level is just ridiculous. Everyone knows that these laws have potential implications. They have implications for the AFP and for every agency that works in the ACT, including Defence and our security agencies. If anyone doesn't understand that, I think they really should just think about things for five minutes longer than, clearly, they have already. This is a matter that deserves consideration by the Senate. It's fully within our authority to consider. Doing so does nothing to challenge or abrogate the ideal of self-government in the ACT, and it should be supported by all in this place. 18:34 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I rise to support this motion, mainly because I don't think we have had a serious discussion and political debate about whether hard drugs like ice, meth, cocaine and heroin should be decriminalised in this country. I certainly didn't have on my 2023 bingo card that, by the end of the year, hard drugs in this country would be decriminalised in any state or territory jurisdiction. I can't remember a significant debate about this issue. There has obviously been a debate about injection rooms and a debate about marijuana, and they have been well discussed, but I don't think anybody thought that, within this calendar year, we would somehow have a situation where in our nation's capital—or any jurisdiction, for that matter, in this country—people could have lethal amounts of ice, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines and simply pay the equivalent of a parking fine for it. That is what the ACT government has passed and, if nothing else happens, that is what will be the law in the ACT come the end of this month—in fact, in less than two weeks time, on 28 October. As other speakers have said, as a parent, I am very concerned about these changes. I have five children. One of your greatest fears as a parent is if any of your children were to succumb to the evil of drug addiction. It is a shocking virus that affects too many in our country. Those hard drugs, in particular, cause so much damage. They cripple people's lives. They destroy people's lives and they destroy the families of those who are touched by these drugs. Decriminalising in this way somewhat normalises this behaviour, and we should never seek to normalise the use of these kinds of hard drugs, given how devastating they are to people's health and given the impact on the loved ones of people who use these drugs. It needs to be stressed that the changes that the ACT government has put in place mean that somebody who is caught carrying these drugs—and, as I said, they amount to many times the lethal dose of those drugs under this legislation—if you have that small but still lethal amount of those drugs, you will, in effect, pay less than you would if you parked in the wrong place in the ACT. It is less than a parking fine here. I think it is important to think about how we feel about a parking fine. I've had a parking fine before—I put my hand up—and I have had speeding fines. Yes, I have done the wrong thing—I admit it. But very few of us think that we have actually committed a crime when that happens. We are frustrated with our behaviour and we get disappointed with the fact that we have to pay sometimes large fines and lose points if it is a speeding violation. But it is not seen as criminal activity; it's seen as kind of a human error. While we all, I am sure, strive to not speed or park illegally, there is no real social contagion from the issue. It is not deemed to be something out of the ordinary; everybody pretty much does it at different times. So, if we make a certain activity on a par or, in this case, far less than committing a parking violation, I think we therefore give a certain social licence from the government that acting in this way is not proscribed. There is more at play here than just whether something is illegal or legal or exactly how much the fine is for it. There is a social stigma here around the use of hard drugs, which I don't think is a bad thing. It probably deters some people from using those drugs because there is such a stigma associated with it. It provides a warning signal, especially to young people and often vulnerable people—at vulnerable times in their life—that maybe they should think twice about resorting to hard drugs, because there is such a social stigma about it, it is a criminal activity and they will potentially face significant penalties. Keep in mind that very often those penalties are not applied, certainly with softer drugs like marijuana. I don't think it is legal in any jurisdiction yet—not for recreational use—but people don't tend to be arrested for it or put away for it. I still think there is value in having severe penalties in place to create that stigma around hard drugs so fewer Australians succumb to the vile addiction that they present. I think those arguments many Australian parents would agree with. Most would be shocked that the ACT government has decided to do this. We hear this evening that we have no rights here, that the Commonwealth should not be involved because the ACT Legislative Assembly, as a sovereign democratic body, has chosen to do this and therefore should be allowed to proceed. I think there are a few very important reasons why this case does require a greater degree of oversight from the Commonwealth government. I will go through those reasons but, if nothing else, as a Commonwealth, we have a duty of care to the employees of Commonwealth government agencies that will be affected by these laws and who do not seem to have been consulted or involved in their construction. The ACT government does not have its own police force. These laws will not be enforced by ACT government employees; they will be enforced the Australian Federal Police, and the Australian Federal Police are employed under Commonwealth legislation. We have heard from others in this debate how the Australian Federal Police are somewhat perplexed by these laws. They are a little confused as to how they will be applied and how they could potentially conflict with Commonwealth laws, and that puts them in a dangerous position. It also potentially exposes them to greater risk because there is obviously a risk that criminals will seek to abuse the situation here in the ACT and expand their evil business models. That will put Australian Federal Police at greater risk in having to deal with such criminals who oftentimes resort to violence. So we have a duty of care here, at the very least, to those employees of the Commonwealth to have the investigation that Senator Cash has brought forward to this place so that we can fully understand what those risks are to those employees. That would seem to make a lot of sense. There is also here an issue of the reputation of our national capital. We have provided the ACT government with a variety of self-government rights to run services throughout the ACT. I think that is right and proper that they have that self-determination. But the ACT still has a special role within our country. It is our nation's capital, and the Commonwealth government does still reserve certain rights around the capital. It isn't true to say the ACT government can do whatever it likes, even with the absence of Commonwealth legislation. There are various parts of the ACT that remain under the administration of the National Capital Authority and, therefore, under Commonwealth government agencies because it is our nation's capital. This parliament and its surrounds are part of that jurisdiction that remains in Commonwealth hands. This particular change proposes so great a risk to the reputation of our nation's capital that it is worthy of us to look into these laws that seem to have been rushed through the ACT parliament. We don't want our nation's capital to have the reputation as the nation's drug capital and that is clearly a risk here. Others have quoted the shocking descent that we have seen happen to various American cities that have either decriminalised or are failing to enforce drug laws. I don't think we see anything like that in this country, notwithstanding way too high uses of illicit drugs. But there is a risk that the streets of Canberra will become like the streets of San Francisco. Because this is our national capital, I don't want Australia to suffer that reputational damage unnecessarily, and certainly not without looking at the issue very clearly and in a detailed fashion. The ACT is not an island, as Senator Scarr said, quite rightly. In fact, it borders many other large population centres in New South Wales—growing centres in Queanbeyan and Jerrabomberra, Yass and Murrumbateman to the north, and any legalisation or decriminalisation of hard drugs here obviously has potential impacts on the communities of those regional New South Wales towns. Those people in those towns have no votes in the ACT Legislative Assembly. They get no votes to elect members of the ACT Legislative Assembly yet they, potentially, and I think quite clearly, face a risk of being impacted by the fallout from these laws. So that's another reason why we should have an investigation here, where representatives of those communities and towns from New South Wales can have their particular concerns put on record about any of the changes in these laws. The final reason I want to raise is that this appears to be, once again, where the ACT Legislative Assembly have rushed through laws. My understanding is that it was a private member's bill brought forward that led to this—that is, what I think are the most radical drug laws in this country and some of the most radical in the world. Therefore, it presumably did not follow proper cabinet processes that would normally occur for a bill from a government. It seems to have come out of the blue a little bit and been rushed to implementation. It's not clear why the ACT government has put a date of 28 October for its implementation, which is only a matter of weeks after the legislation passed the ACT Legislative Assembly. They're giving very little time for police forces and other agencies affected to respond to any implications. This is not an isolated example from this particular ACT Legislative Assembly. They've done similar dirty deeds around the Calvary hospital where they rushed through that legislation. There was no specific inquiry into that particular legislation. I think this activist ACT government is putting Canberra's reputation for good governance here in the territory at grave risk. Because it is a unicameralism parliament there, the government is completely in charge of the ACT Legislative Assembly. There is no review body, and I think we, here, in the Senate, should take that issue up as well. Of all the parliamentarians here in Canberra, we, I think, would understand and cherish the need for review of serious and radical legislation, and when we act at our best— Senator Shoebridge 169119 Queensland. Senator CANAVAN 245212 I will take that interjection, Senator Shoebridge. I completely agree with you about the issue in Queensland as well. I've supported, publicly, many times the creation of the upper house there. And the ACT is not being singled out—we often have Senate inquiries into state government activities. We are still conducting one on the Olympics. In regard to the Queensland government, I remember the Labor Party pursuing the Newman government for many years, through a Senate inquiry here, into their activities. So it's not unusual at all, and, as a member of the Senate, I think good Westminster governance does require the checks and balances of multiple chambers of parliament so that you do not get these radical experiments that can cause so much harm and damage from time to time. So that's another reason I think that we should look into this as the Senate. There is no Senate in the ACT. There has been no proper non-partisan inquiry in their legislative assembly. Finally, I think if we don't do this, if we wash our hands of this situation, as the government seems inclined to do, any particular fallout from these laws has to be partly the responsibility of this government too. I think the government here are running scared on this issue. None of them are giving fulsome support to the ACT government's changes. I would think it would be political suicide to do so. As I said, if parents in this country understood what was going on here they would revolt right across the country. So they're not giving any fulsome support to it. They're washing their hands, as the nation's parliament, as ultimately the government in charge, in providing a check and balance to territory governments under our Constitution. They're washing their hands of that responsibility and, therefore, if there is a fallout—if there is an increase in drug addiction in the ACT, a breakdown in social standards and behaviours, an increase in risk to our police forces, if that happens in this territory—then some of that blame has to fall at the feet of the Albanese government, who are failing to take their responsibilities seriously under this Constitution. There is nothing wrong with a Commonwealth government checking and overseeing laws of this radical nature passed by a territory. It's how our federation is meant to work. I would hope this motion gets support. It is simply an inquiry to look into these grave risks from these radical laws which could cause so much harm to many Australian families. 18:49 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That the question be put. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T The question is that the motion be put. A division is required. It being after 6.30 pm, the division is deferred until a later date. The debate is adjourned accordingly. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 88 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report No. 6 of 2023-24 88 18:49 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales by leave—I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 88 DOCUMENTS Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability 88 18:49 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. BILLS 88 BILLS Family Law Amendment Bill 2023, Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023 88

Family Law Amendment Bill 2023

Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023

Second Reading 88 18:53 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I thank the Senate for the opportunity to continue to speak to this bill. It's an important bill for me to speak to for a number of reasons. I was speaking earlier about the inquiry of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which I chair, into this bill. When I was previously speaking about this bill I referred, in particular, to evidence given to the committee by victims-survivors of family violence. They made some really powerful contributions to the inquiry. We also heard from experts from across the field of law—of family law in particular—and also from different groups with different views on this bill. But overwhelmingly the expert advice and evidence has supported the measures in this bill, and I want to bring that to the Senate's attention tonight. One of the main characteristics of this bill and one of the main things that we will be talking about and, I assume, debating—because it seems like this is up for debate, which is disappointing—is the repealing of a presumption written into legislation that has caused unnecessary and sometimes harmful misunderstanding, and that's the equal shared parental responsibility presumption that was inserted into the Family Law Act by the Howard government. The reason we need to deal with this language and the way that this language is dealt with in the bill is really multifaceted, and I'd just encourage those senators who are seeking to contribute on this bill to really seek to understand how the language in this bill affects the way that people approach family law matters, even when they're not being dealt with in the court. Many parents engaged in the family law process told us that there is a mistaken understanding that this presumption means that each parent will automatically have equal parenting time. Shared responsibility is, of course, important for children and parents. However, shared time might not always be in the best interests of the children, and of course it can never be in the case of family violence. This has never been the law, but the wording of the sections has led to significant confusion and, in some cases, agreements to unsafe parenting arrangements. Removal of these provisions will ensure everyone understands that the children's needs, rather than the parents', are really the focus of the act and the contribution that this amendment will make to it. It's important for me to make this point. This amendment clarifies the intention of the law. It does not undermine the Family Law Act's recognition of the importance of children maintaining a relationship with both of their parents where it is safe to do so. Anyone who comes into this place and argues otherwise either is misinterpreting the amendment or really should go back and read it again. I would hate to think that anyone arguing against this change is doing so in a malicious way without understanding what is being asked of us here in the Senate. We are also proposing to make amendments that will better align our domestic legislation with obligations under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Currently, Australian family law imposes a higher threshold for consideration of a child's objection to a return order. We heard some really horrific stories during the inquiry that really bring home the importance of this change. Under the proposed changes, a court may refuse to return a child if that child objects to being returned and is of an age and maturity where it is appropriate to take account of their views. Of course, there's a range of minor technical changes that will complement these reforms to build a better and more streamlined family law system. Our legislation means that courts deciding parenting arrangements will be doing so within a more streamlined framework. This will be simpler for parents to understand and will reduce the court's costs and time. It will provide courts with a greater power to protect parties and children from the harmful effects of protracted and adversarial litigation which we have heard borne out so many times when it comes to matters dealing with family violence. Only three per cent of families have their parenting arrangements settled by the Family Court. With such small numbers using these frameworks, previous governments may have said that this change wasn't worth it. But, while 97 per cent of families settle arrangements outside of the court system, they're still guided by the law and the standards that we set here in this place. The law here sets a standard for the settlements and for the way that parents approach separations and custody arrangements. I know that an unavoidable consequence of parental separation is heartache at best and more lasting trauma at worst. For kids, it's very disruptive and uncertain. Often everything that has formed their world view to this point changes—their living arrangements, how their parents relate to each other and other people, quality time with their caregivers, their understanding of conflict resolution, and their sense of safety and routine. This is really formative stuff for kids. This uncertainty can't be avoided, but we can make sure that laws that help bring an end to this period of time are in the best shape possible. Whether it is a mediatory framework to guide parents reaching an agreement between themselves or a more streamlined set of principles upon which judges and counsels can rely, we owe it to the kids to get this right, particularly those in situations of family and domestic violence. I note that consultation on the next tranche of reforms is imminent, and I look forward to engaging in that process. I refer all senators back to the evidence given by Ms Michelle Baumann and Ms Charisse Hay, and I again repeat what Ms Hay said: When the decision-makers remain ignorant to the abusive dynamics that place women and children in ongoing danger, the family law system fails to act in the best interests of the child. Many of these changes seek to keep those kids safer, to make sure that our family law system is setting a standard we can rely on and build on to make sure that all children's interests are considered in the court system. That's what these changes seek to do, and anyone suggesting otherwise has not engaged with the content of this bill or the experts that say that that is what the bill does. 19:00 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I rise to speak to the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023. Family breakups are one of the biggest reasons why men commit suicide and why they fall into depression. I know that fathers need their children and children need their fathers, and mothers need their children and children need their mothers. It's very important that we get family law as protective as we can. It's always a question, when it comes to these issues, though, of dealing with each case as it comes. If you're a judge in the family law courts, I can't imagine it would be an easy job; there must be many situations where it gets very difficult to decide the rights of the parents, the separated parents, the mother, father and the children. But, ultimately, we must always have the children's interests at heart first. But I think it's also important that, when we make changes or do anything, we make sure that both parents are given equal consideration. That is why I have chosen to speak on this bill. I am concerned that this bill is going to repeal the presumption of shared parental responsibility. My understanding of shared parental responsibility is that it doesn't automatically guarantee that parents get fifty-fifty time with their children, and it has a carveout in the cases where there is violence involved—so if the father or the mother is violent, that presumption is quickly removed so that the child isn't exposed to anything that could be dangerous. Where it's key is when it comes to decision-making in regard to what happens with the child, and there are many circumstances whereby both parents—and I believe this—should have input in the decisions being made about the child's future. Something I've encountered recently in the last 18 months, to do with the COVID vaccines, is that I was contacted by an enormous number of parents who had separated, and one parent wanted their child vaccinated and the other parent didn't want their child vaccinated. There obviously wasn't much I could do about it, but it was just one example whereby parents had different views as to what was in the best interests of the child. How you work these things out can't be easy, but we need to make sure that both parents have a say in those types of arrangements. The other thing that I'm concerned about with this bill is the removal of the word 'meaningful' in the sense that a child should have a meaningful relationship with their parent. The existing act says that we should try and ensure that a child has a meaningful relationship with their parent. The word 'meaningful' is being removed. I don't really know why you'd need to remove the word 'meaningful'. With all these things, when you get into a court of law—I studied a master's of tax law, and you'd be amazed at the mental gymnastics, even in something as simple as tax and numbers, and how they can manipulate words to have different meanings. I think we should keep that word 'meaningful' in the Family Law Act because it is important that a child has a meaningful relationship with both parents, to the maximum extent possible. The cynic in me is fearful that taking this word out of the act may work against a certain parent. It may be used against a certain parent, and it may become harder for that parent to justify getting time with the child. The other thing is: while I think that it is important that the child has a say in how much time they spend with the parents, ultimately we need to make sure that the provision to give greater power to the child to decide who they spend time with isn't used by one parent against another parent. I know fathers, in particular, who have lost their children, and when they lose their children they lose their purpose in life. It's a very important issue. I've had a great, wonderful life, but, as I've gotten older, nothing gives me a greater sense of purpose than being a father and spending time with my children. I would ask Labor to reconsider some of these amendments. I'm not sure that they're in the best interests of the entire family outfit, whether it's together or separated. Reconsider these amendments. 19:05 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania The current family law system is broken. It's failing parents and, more importantly, it's failing kids. The Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 and the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023 will fundamentally change the way family law disputes are resolved by the courts. Children will now be at the centre of the family law system, and this is where they should be. Children aren't responsible for the actions of their parents. They're kids. They rely on their parents for food, shelter and everything in between. Children aren't the reason parents fight and break up. Children are powerless about who they live with and how long their visits can be. We owe it to people who are too young to make decisions for themselves to have their best interests front and centre when decisions are made about their future. I'm hopeful that the changes made by these bills will do just that. The changes made by these bills are made in response to recent inquiries into the family law system, most notably by the Australian Law Reform Commission and the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System. The Family Law Amendment Bill makes a number of changes to the Family Law Act. Perhaps most importantly, it replaces the presumption of shared parental responsibility with a new paramount consideration for resolving family law disputes: the best interests of the child. I support this bill. The information sharing bill also makes changes to how information about family violence, child abuse and neglect is shared between state, territory and federal authorities and the courts. I also support this bill. The government amendments to their own bills include statutory reviews of the changes made by both bills. These reviews were recommended by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, and I think this is a good move. We need statutory reviews in place to see if the bills will actually work like we want them to. If they don't, we'll know about it; the reviews will guarantee that. If there is room for improvement we can make the necessary changes to ensure the family law system is operating as intended. I'm happy to support these government amendments, and I'm happy that they come to the table and listen to my concerns. When we first saw the statutory reviews, they were open-ended. They had a start date but not an end date. The risk with the way the government amendments were originally drafted was that the Attorney-General could decide to start but never complete a review. A report could be half written and never see the light of day, or there could be a draft report with some great recommendations that the government could sit on. Politics could prevent progress, and we don't want that. I worked with the government to come to an agreement that the three-year reviews in both bills will have a 12-month time limit. This gives the reviewer enough time to ask all the important questions of the necessary people, but it also gives the parliament an assurance that the next government must present a report about the changes made by this legislation. That means that, if needed, we can improve the family law system to make it even better for all parties. 19:09 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales I rise to speak on the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 and the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023. I'm sure most, if not all, in this chamber would agree that the family law system is one of the most crucially important policy areas that we have the power to legislate on. It has a direct and profound impact on Australians, both young and old, rich and poor. As such, it's paramount that we get it right, and it has only become more important. We know that divorce and separation are much more common today than perhaps a generation ago, which means more Australians are coming into contact with or being affected by family law. Given the immense emotional turmoil that is embedded within this difficult process, I think it is a given that we should be aiming for a system that resolves disputes as quickly and cleanly as possible. At the centre of our policy formation should be the welfare and the flourishing of our children. They don't get a say in a couple's decision to split, and they are the most vulnerable. At a time when stability is important for a young child's development, their world can be turned upside down, so we must prioritise their best interests. The coalition welcomes some of the measures in these bills, particularly the information sharing bill, and we do acknowledge good faith and the noble intentions of those opposite in seeking to do the right thing by Australians going through this difficult process. However, we do have some concerns that the proposed solutions either overreach or overcorrect problems or are simply untested and therefore contain too many unknowns to blindly support. In some cases, the government has gone well beyond recommendations made by previous reviews, which is not supported by those in the profession and has not been road-tested on the ground. It's something we as legislators should be very cautious about, as I stated earlier, because we're dealing with a system that is meant to guide families through some of the most difficult parts of their lives. In the parenting framework in schedule 1, namely when looking at the best interests of the child, we see that the most significant part of the schedule seeks to repeal most of the factors courts must consider when determining the best interests of the child. Whilst we agree with the sentiment, the confusing and difficult considerations—which run over three pages and almost 900 words—are difficult for parents and courts to navigate. These ought to be simplified and expediated, but there are some concerns that oversimplification can become detrimental to the spirit which the move to simplify seeks to achieve. Labor's revised list requires the courts only to 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, when it's safe to do so. The word 'meaningful' has been removed, which the coalition has concerns about. It changes the messaging around the quality of the relationships children ought to be exposed to in this scenario. A supervised visit once a month may well be 'a relationship', but it is not a meaningful relationship, and this has deep implications for extended family networks. The list says the court needs to consider not just the benefit to the child of a relationship with parents but also the benefit of a relationship with others who are significant to the child. This includes grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins or stepsiblings, which may be hugely important. When we place the child at the centre, safety is of course the No. 1 priority, but I do believe emotional, psychological and even spiritual flourishing in some cases are deeply important to the healthy development of a child and should not be overlooked. Bodies like the Law Council of Australia have expressly raised this as an oversight which should be corrected. We also note concerns about the court's consideration of any views expressed by the child. In principle it is appropriate that the child's views should be heard, considered and respected, but we raise concerns that the provision, as drafted, could encourage parents to coach or pressure children, and it's a concern that is shared by the profession. Labor's simplified list also requires the courts to consider what arrangements would promote safety of the child and persons who care for the child, but surprisingly the list, as introduced, 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 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, and the failure to add it adds weight to our concerns about the attempts to ram this bill through without any real attempt to scrutinise the bill or negotiate bipartisan support. There is continued ambiguity in the simplified list with regard to the statement 'anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstance of the child'. As it stands, on the face of the statute, there's no guidance about the child's maturity level or level of understanding; whether a parent has been engaged in parenting in the past, including their financial obligations to maintain the child; the likely impact of any change in circumstances; and the practicalities of any arrangement. These could be referred to in the legislative notes, as some in the profession have suggested. We hope and trust that the courts will take these into account. Further to this, schedule 1 of the bill drastically cuts the objects and principles of the parenting framework in the Family Law Act. It repeals 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. It says: The repeal and substitution of section 60B does not indicate that the repealed objects and principles are no longer relevant. 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. The problem is the message that the repeal sends, particularly when viewed as part of a larger package of changes to schedule 1. As the act currently stands, the intent of parliament is clear. Summarised, it says that the parenting framework intends to ensure children have the benefit of both of their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives where it is in the best interests of the child; to protect children from abuse, neglect and family violence; ensure children receive adequate and proper parenting; and ensure that parents fulfil their duties and meet their responsibilities. These things are not controversial. There are also some general principles that underlie those objects. Paraphrased, they say that, except where it is contrary to a child's best interests, children have a right to know and be cared for by both their parents; children have a right to spend time and communicate with their parents and others who are significant to them such as grandparents and other relatives; parents jointly share duties and responsibilities for raising children; parents should agree about the parenting of their children; and children have a right to enjoy their culture. Again, these should not be controversial, and the Attorney's own explanatory memorandum says they are still relevant. If they are still relevant, they should stay in the bill. The risk is that, when read in conjunction with other changes to the bill, the overwhelming message is that the parliament is reversing its support for principles when guiding separating parents. At law, the words in the explanatory memorandum will only be used to determine the meaning of the law if a provision is ambiguous or obscure or if the ordinary meaning on the words of statute lead to a result that is manifestly absurd or unreasonable. But perhaps more importantly, we all know that, when parent recreation separating, they won't go to the explanatory materials. They won't dive into a 91-page explanatory memorandum about an amending bill, only to be told that some principles that were previously in the law continue to be relevant. Most families will never go to court but will make decisions in the shadow of the law, as we heard in the committee. If we as a parliament agree that separating parents should share duties and responsibilities and cooperate to raise their children, we should say so. Those things should appear on the face of a statute where people can read them. Otherwise, we run the risk of short-changing the Australian people. It is understandably a very difficult balance to strike. Objective legalism is good in ensuring the lack of ambiguity in the system, but it runs the risk of treating individuals as ones and zeros, by applying the rule of law flatly to every scenario, despite the nuance of family dynamics and situations. Labor's amendment goes much further than what has been recommended. The recommendations are clear. The presumption of equal and shared custody should be reformed and clarified. Many across the legal profession raised concerns during the consultation period when the exposure draft was released. The problem that Labor says it wants to address is the misunderstanding of the presumption. The misunderstanding arises because, as it is presently drafted, the presumption is often conflated with equal time. The explanatory memorandum refers to the ALRC report which found that the essence of presumption was useful and should be retained. It says that the problem is that parents can enter into negotiations based on incorrect assumptions about their entitlements. Normally, you would address a misunderstanding or incorrect assumption by clearing up what you actually mean. But, instead of addressing this misunderstanding, Labor has decided to get rid of the presumption altogether. We lose the principle that, where safe, it is in the best interests of the child for parents to have joint decision-making responsibility about long-term issues. By opting for repeal instead of reform, we lose a clear statement on the face of the law saying it is in the child's interests for parents to cooperate and agree about how to raise their child. And, for the very many parents who negotiate in the shadow of the law, without lawyers or courts, that is a very significant change. Ultimately the opposition welcomes the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill. It 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 strong record when it comes to improving the interaction between the child protection and family law systems. In the 2019-20 budget, funding was provided to co-locate state and territory family safety officials in family law courts to improve information sharing between the family law, family violence and child protection systems. And, after the ALRC handed down its report Family law for the future, the coalition agreed with the recommendation to implement a national information-sharing framework. We know that far too many family law disputes involve family violence and we are all too aware of the devastating and long-term impact that that can have. And we know that situations can change quickly while a family law matter is progressing through the courts. The information that was put before the court six months ago might not be the information it needs to make the best possible orders today. A joined-up approach between the family law, family violence and child protection systems is one way to combat this situation, and this bill is a welcome development. But I reiterate to those opposite: we should be seeking to foster unity wherever possible, even within these difficult spaces—national unity, social unity, financial unity, familial unity. Let's not continue to drive ideological wedges into every bastion and tier of our society to undermine the pillars with which our society is built, rejecting tradition, even the good elements, for the sake of progressivism, but instead take a genuine approach to considering what works and what doesn't. The past is not malleable clay to be revised on present beliefs. It's a reminder of who we were and who we can become—the good and the bad. It is a powerful teacher if we listen to it. We shouldn't forget that which makes us uncomfortable, or we will most certainly make the same mistakes again. This legislation provides an opportunity for reform, but we mustn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. 19:22 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria I also rise to make a contribution on the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 and the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023. As senators and members know well, family law matters that our electorate offices have to deal with are some of the most difficult and distressing constituent cases that we deal with. It is a reality of modern life, whether we like it or not, that family separation occurs. The vast majority of the thousands of those cases that happen each year happen a long way away from the formal legal system and never find their way to the courts. But some of the constituents who we deal with who are the most agitated and distressed and have the highest expectations of our assistance are those who do find themselves in the formal legal system, in the courts, and have a judgement about a family separation that is not to their satisfaction. It is incumbent on us as legislators to do the best we can to design a system which facilitates that in the smoothest and least confrontational way possible. We can never design a system which is so perfect that we will never have people who feel like they are on the wrong side of a family law judgement. There will always be those, in the complexities of the realities of life and in the messiness of family breakdown, who believe that they were hard done by, but our objective as legislators should be to design a system which minimises that as often as can be the case. The coalition welcomes a number of measures that are in these bills, and in particular in the information-sharing bill, but we are concerned that in the Family Law Amendment Bill there are issues which are right to be recognised but the solutions are either untested, unproven, uncertain and could have unintended consequences or, in the view of the coalition, go too far. We acknowledge the good intentions of the government in this instance. We don't believe they're setting out with ill intentions. They are trying to fix a system which is imperfect and make it better. We recognise that a lot of those issues need a solution. In too many cases, though, we believe that the solutions being proposed by the government don't align well with the problems. They go beyond recommendations made in previous reviews. They are often not supported by the profession. We are concerned that they will have unintended consequences, or that they've not been adequately road-tested with communities on the ground and those that will have to live with the consequences of the new system that the parliament puts in place. Our real concern is that the solutions in this bill may, in fact, unintentionally make things worse for Australian families. That's something we should be very cautious about, particularly when we are dealing with a system involving people dealing with the most difficult decisions and issues in their life. The most significant part of this schedule—schedule 1, part 1—would repeal most of the factors that the courts must consider when determining the best interests of the child. That list of factors is currently long, but there are two primary considerations and then 14 additional considerations. The list runs over three pages and has almost 900 words. It's confusing and difficult for parents and courts—we acknowledge that. It should be simplified. That is a worthy objective. But there are real concerns that this new, simplified list of considerations in the proposed bill will have some unintended consequences. Take, for example, the 'meaningful relationship' with parents and other significant people. Labor's new list requires that a court only 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 is safe to do so. The list does not require the court to consider the benefits of 'a meaningful relationship', as it presently the case. You only need to work through a few scenarios to see how profound that change could be. Losing the word 'meaningful' is a significant change. It sends important signals to the court about the type of relationship that is in the best interests of the child. But it also sends those signals to the vast majority of separating couples, who do not go to court and who are not represented by lawyers, and—to use the phrase my colleague Senator Hughes used—instead make decisions in the shadow of the law. Actually, a lot of what we do as legislators is about setting social norms and habits and the way in which people deal with things. Often it's the case that our legislation is only tested once or twice in a case, and then that precedent is applied by lawyers advising their clients. This is not unique to family law; it's common in many areas of law. So we should be really sensitive to the signals that we send and not imagine that it will be always a court determining these factors. It will often be lawyers advising their clients about the implications of the changes that we've made. That's why Senator Hughes was referring to 'the shadow of the law' and the implication. In this case, this particular change sends a signal about the quality of the relationship between the child and the relevant person. A supervised visit for once a month, for example, might constitute 'a relationship', but it's obviously not a meaningful relationship, particularly if it's for one of the parents. It, potentially, has significant implications for extended family networks, because the list also says that the court needs to consider not just the benefit to the child of a relationship with parents, but also the benefit of a relationship with others who are significant to the child. For some children, relationships with grandparents, aunties and uncles, cousins and step-siblings may be hugely important, but the court doesn't need to consider the benefits of a meaningful relationship with these people, only the benefits of a relationship. Bodies such as the Law Council of Australia have raised this as an issue which should be corrected. In our view, it is an oversight in the legislation that should be corrected, as well. Another issue is the views expressed by the child. The legislation requires the court to consider any views expressed by the child. In principle, this is, of course, appropriate. Children must be heard. But, as drafted, the provision could encourage parents to coach or place pressure on a child. This is a concern that has also been raised by the profession, and it is an accusation very commonly made—fairly or unfairly; truthfully or falsely—in family separation disputes. One parent alleges that the other parent has coached a child to have a particular view and say particular things. It would be a perverse and concerning unintended consequence if the new system actually incentivised parents to do so—that is, incentivised them, by saying that the views expressed by the child must be taken into consideration by the court, to try to coach the child to make a contribution that is favourable to a decision they're seeking from the court. That would be perverse and make family separations even more difficult than they already are. Another issue is the arrangements that promote safety. Labor's simplified list requires that the court consider what arrangements would promote safety of the child and each person who has care of the child. Surprisingly, the list as introduced does not require the court to consider existing family violence orders and the basis on which they were made. This is an issue that the coalition raised during the committee process. It is not a departure from existing practice, where things like family violence orders are usually considered, but it is surprising, and the failure to include it adds weight to our concerns about the attempts to ram through this bill without any real attempt at scrutinise or to negotiate bipartisan support. It's also worth noting the concern raised by some in the profession that Labor's list risks overlooking a number of important factors. The list does include 'anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of the child', but there is no guidance, on the face of the statute, about the child's maturity or their level of understanding; there is no guidance about whether a parent has engaged in parenting in the past, including the obligation to financially maintain the child; there's no guidance about the likely impact of any change in circumstances; and there is no guidance about the practicalities of any arrangement. These things could be referred to in legislative notes, as some in the profession have suggested, and we hope and trust that the court will take these into account. Schedule 1 of the bill drastically cuts the principles of the parenting framework in the Family Law Act. It repeals objects and principles, which are set out in section 60B of the act, that have guided families and the courts for many years. The explanatory memorandum says that, despite appearances to the contrary, the intention is not to lose these objects and principles. It says: The repeal and substitution of section 60B does not indicate that the repealed objects and principles are no longer relevant. 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. The problem is the message that the repeal of this section sends, particularly when it is viewed as part of a larger package of changes to schedule 1. As the act currently stands, the intent of the parliament is clear. It says that the parenting framework intends to ensure children have the benefit of both of their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives, where it is in the best interests of the child; 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 things are not controversial. There are also some general principles that underline these objects. Paraphrased, these say that, except where it's contrary to the child's best interests, children have the right to know and be cared for by both their parents; children have a right to spend time and communicate with their parents and others who are significant to them, such as grandparents and other relatives; parents jointly share duties and responsibilities for raising children; parents should agree about the parenting of their children; and children have a right to enjoy their culture. Again, these should not be controversial, and the Attorney's own explanatory memorandum says they are still relevant. But, if they are still relevant, why are they not in the bill and why can't they stay in the act? The risk is that, when read in conjunction with the other changes in the bill, the overwhelming message is that the parliament is reversing its previous support for principles which guide separating parents. At law, the words in an EM 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 lead to a result that is manifestly absurd or unreasonable. Perhaps more importantly, we all know that when parents are separating they don't have the time, expertise or money to get across the explanatory materials. There is a 91-page EM, in the instance of the amendments to this bill. Frankly, most legislators participating in this space wouldn't have the time to read that, let alone most parents going through a difficult family separation. As I said before, most families never go to court, and we hope that remains the case. It is not the object of an act like this for families to resolve their disputes in the court. Unfortunately, it's the reality that in some instances a dispute is not able to be resolved by negotiation and consent and it does end up in a court. Effectively, what that means is that those decisions are made based on the advice of lawyers—in the words of my colleague, in the shadow of the law. If we agree as a parliament that separating parents should share duties and responsibilities and that they should cooperate to raise their children, then we should say so. I don't think those are controversial propositions; I think they're quite reasonable propositions. Those things should appear on the face of the statute, where people can read them; otherwise, we risk giving the Australian people a misleading impression about the parliament's intention with this legislation. Moving on to schedule 1, part 2 in the remaining time that I have, it repeals the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility that applies when courts make parenting orders. This particular change in the bill is one of the ones that has generated a lot of feedback and heat about this legislation. It is one of these issues which is contentious in family law matters. I won't go through the history available as to why that was put in. There is of course a case for change that can be made and has been made by others, including by the ALRC. But the ALRC report under the former government did not recommend the removal of these provisions. It said, in fact, that it served a good point for negotiations between parents and recommended that the concept be retained. It agreed in principle with the existing exceptions to that presumption, and it noted that in practice parental responsibility has often been conflated with equal-time care arrangements for children. This could detract from the focus on what is actually in the child's best interests. That led the ALRC to recommend that the wording of the relevant provision should be clarified—not repealed; clarified. 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. The joint select committee inquiry into Australia's family law system, set up by the former government, investigated this. It expressly considered that recommendation about the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility and acknowledged that the presumption is often conflated with equal time. The majority recommended amending the wording of the presumption to address this misunderstanding of the provision, rather than getting rid of it altogether. We think that the proposed changes by the government in this instance go too far. They do not just reform and clarify it. They go much further than that. A number of submitters to the inquiry were concerned about the implications of this change. In summing up, this is a complex area of law. We have no doubt that the government has proceeded with the best of intentions, but given the complexity, given the speed with which this has been legislated, the speed of the parliamentary inquiry and the apparent unwillingness to negotiate with the opposition about sensible bipartisan changes, we are concerned about the legislation as it stands. We hope that these issues that we're raising in this place can be corrected before we are required to have a vote. 19:37 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I appreciate the opportunity to contribute in this debate on the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 and Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023. At the outset I want to re-emphasise some of the points made by Senator Paterson and, I know, many other contributors to this debate, about the importance and sensitivity of the issues that are under consideration through this legislation and in general through the family law system. As parliamentarians we all balance responsibility and workload between work in this chamber, in this parliament, in committees and other functions of this parliament, which are ultimately about the drafting and consideration of legislation, of policy and of complex issues and how we seek to achieve the best possible outcomes for the public. We balance that work alongside our responsibilities as senators for different states and territories of Australia, responsibilities for our constituents and responsibilities to engage with care and consideration as those constituents bring their concerns to us. One of the unique things I've noticed over what is now a longish period of time in this place, an observation about constituents who come to see senators, is that often they are the most challenging of constituent circumstances. Sometimes they will have already been to see their local MP and have raised their concerns through their local MP as well as through other arms or agencies of government that might be available to them. By the time they get to a senator's office their problems are quite often intractable and deeply entrenched, very challenging and have taken a huge personal toll on the individuals concerned. Of course some of the most tragic of those can be in relation to the family law system. In those cases we see people whose cases have dragged on for many, many years, who have pursued many appeal processes and who have often suffered enormous financial detriment and harm during those proceedings. We also have to be mindful of the personal detriment and harm caused. The old adage that justice delayed is justice denied is applicable in all forms of legal procedure and consideration but perhaps especially so in dealing with family law cases that relate to child custody and access issues. As weeks turn to months and months turn to years, a child's life progresses and moves on, and delays and challenges in the justice system can ultimately mean that family relationships are changed forever through some of the most trying and difficult times in an individual's life and some of the most fast-moving times in a child's life. That's why consideration of the matters brought forward in this legislation is important and why it's also important that there is deep and thorough consideration given to changes to our family law framework in Australia. Overwhelmingly, most Australians navigate separation and the financial, child custody and access issues that come with it without having an ultimate determination by a court of law. We should welcome and encourage that, because, to ensure that justice is not delayed, that the impact upon children is minimised and that they have access to loving, caring, responsible parents and family members in their lives, it's important for us to have a system that incentivises people to make their own determinations and to resolve matters as quickly and succinctly as possible. The coalition is very clear that some of the measures in the bills before us are welcome. We see that they add to and clearly complement the work of our family law system. But, in other areas, we do have concerns, which have been expressed by my colleagues and explored through Senate committee processes—concerns that changes have not been adequately considered and consulted upon or create risks that could ultimately lead to delays, case increases or challenges through the system. These are things that ought to be avoided and that this chamber ought to give serious consideration to as amendments and proposals are considered through the committee stage of this legislation. Firstly, I'll go to the good news, the part where our support is very clearly on the record and unqualified, and that is in relation to the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill. We welcome this bill. It's a culmination of work that was started under the previous government to ensure that family courts have the information they need when making orders in relation to parenting matters. We believe that we have a strong record when it comes to improving the interaction between the child protection and family law systems. When we speak about the paramount interests and wellbeing of the child, there can be nothing greater than ensuring child safety and therefore ensuring that the intersection between the family law and child protection systems is a strong and well-integrated one. In the 2019-20 budget, our government provided funding to co-locate state and territory family safety officials in family law courts to improve the information sharing between the family law, family violence and child protection systems. Further, after the Australian Law Reform Commission handed down its report Family law for the future, the coalition government at the time agreed with the recommendation to implement a national information-sharing framework. We know that far too many family law disputes involve family violence, and we are all too aware of the devastating and long-term impact that it can have. The more quickly, simply and clearly disputes are able to be resolved, with full information about any family violence, the more we can manage to minimise that impact on all parties but especially on children. We also know that situations can change quickly while a family law matter is progressing through the courts. Information that was put before a court some months ago may not be the information that can best inform orders made by that court at the time it is finalising them. Therefore, joining up a coordinated approach between the family law, family violence and child protection systems is a critical way to combat this situation, and the bill is a welcome development. The national information sharing framework was intended to guide the sharing of information between the family law, family violence and child protection systems. This is critical to ensure the safety, welfare and wellbeing of families and children. I'm pleased that it is work that has progressed in partnership with jurisdictions, 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. The objective of that national framework was very simple—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. One of the features of the national framework was a shift away from subpoenas issued by the parties to a family law dispute. Instead, the framework moved towards targeted requests for information and court initiated orders. Rather than relying on parties to issue subpoenas, the framework is intended to empower courts to access family safety information. It proposed a new form of order, referred to as a short-form order, which is intended to ascertain whether a state or territory agency holds information that would inform decision-making and give an indication into the nature or extent of the risk or records held and the involvement of responding agencies. The national framework envisaged that a broad range of state and territory agencies would be information-sharing agencies, expressly including state and territory child protection or child welfare departments and state and territory policing agencies and firearms registries. It also envisaged flexibility to include other bodies in the future. This could mean that corrections, youth justice and even non-government organisations, such as specialist family violence services, could participate in the scheme. What we were seeking to do was to give effect to the simple principle that, if a person's safety is a concern in court proceedings, then all relevant information should be put before the court to ensure decision-making is fully informed and that that information should be accessed as easily, readily and speedily as possible. We are pleased to see this is reflected in the bill as introduced, which is why this component of the legislation before us enjoys strong support from the coalition. We also recognise that other changes contained in the Family Law Amendment Bill are moved with good intentions. We join the government in recognising there are many issues this bill seeks to address. But, in too many places, we are concerned that the proposal put forward by the government in the bill do not always align with these problems or create the risk of further issues or problems. They also in some places go beyond recommendations made by previous reviews, which may not be universally supported by the legal profession or have other unintended consequences, especially where they have not been appropriately tested. A very real concern is that, although we join with the government in recognising the issues and the problems to be tackled, the solutions in this bill in some cases may make things worse in terms of the efficiency, effectiveness or outcomes of our family law system, and that's why we urge the government to give serious consideration to the concerns that have been raised by colleagues. Those will be explored further during the committee stage. A particular one that I wish to highlight is the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. It's the most significant part of schedule 1 to the bill, which would repeal the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility that applies when courts make parenting orders. I can remember the debate that existed in relation to the introduction of this presumption. There had been widespread concern about how courts dealt with contact and residency issues for children after a relationship breakdown. There was mounting pressure and argument for there to be a change that sought to pursue a more equal approach in terms of the caring relationship of parents. It was against that backdrop that the Howard government commissioned an inquiry into the family law system, chaired by Kay Hull. That report was remarkable in its recommendations. They were unanimous and bipartisan. They were united in recommending a rebuttal presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. Their recommendations were given effect by changes to the Family Law Act, passed in 2006, which I know you, Acting Deputy President Chisholm, paid close attention to in the other place at the time. Those reforms said that courts must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for there to be equal shared parental responsibility. Importantly, they were clear that the presumption does not apply in circumstances where there is abuse or family violence and that it is not a presumption that parenting orders should allocate time to parents on a fifty-fifty basis; rather, it is about shared responsibility for decision-making about a child after a separation. They established important guardrails for courts to make parenting orders. This bill removes many of those guardrails that were introduced, and it is contrary to the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission. The ALRC said that it supports the idea that a presumption of shared parental responsibility serves as a good starting point for negotiations between parents and recommends that the concept be retained. I don't have time remaining to go through the details of our concerns or the concerns of many submitters to this inquiry who backed in the ALRC view and the coalition view that it would be better to retain this presumption. But it is a critical one that has helped, I believe—as do many others—to drive parents to resolve issues outside of the court process and to do so in ways that are considerate of each other whilst ultimately retaining the safeguards to ensure that all outcomes still put the interests of the child as the paramount consideration. So I urge the government to think carefully and to be open-minded in considering changes, particularly in relation to this issue and some of the others raised by my colleagues. 19:52 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I too rise to speak on the Family Law Amendment Bill. There are many challenges we face in this place in dealing with issues that perhaps aren't our first interest—not the reason that we entered the Senate or we entered parliament—and I must admit that this is one of them for me. I'm lucky enough to have grown up in a stable, loving household, but we must confront a world where that is not always the case and we must do our bests as legislators to try to get the balance correct in these very difficult legal areas. When you are dealing with family breakdown and weighing the rights of parents against those of children and of parents against parents, often in circumstances where agreement is difficult to reach, where there is conflict, it is not something that is easy to put into a simple legislative framework. As a starting point, I think we must all acknowledge and pay tribute to those who work in that area as judges, arbitrators or counsellors. It is an extraordinarily difficult area of the law in which to work because it is just so very hard to weigh up the various competing requirements of custody, the welfare of children, the desires of parents and the complex family arrangements that can arise in this day and age. We have to get back to some principles and we have to believe in some basic fundamentals of what we wish to deliver, particularly, I think, for the children in those circumstances. In the end, ensuring that children are nurtured, protected and raised in a loving environment with, if at all possible, both parents being actively involved is just so important. We absolutely understand that this bill has been moved with the best of intentions, and much of it we will support. In fact, we join with the government in recognising that many of the problems that are sought to be addressed in this bill are problems that confront Australians and the legal system, and they do need solutions. We do have concerns over some of the solutions proposed in this bill, and I wish to speak briefly about the area that Senator Birmingham was cogently going through, which is the presumption around parental responsibility and equal and shared parenting. I will get to that in a moment. But we do need to understand the potential for unintended consequences in this area. The signals sent by legislative changes in this area are important to the legal profession. They are important to the way families interact. They are important to the way parents perhaps approach these circumstances, so we do have to be extraordinarily careful about how we handle these very sensitive issues. We acknowledge that it is difficult to test in this area. It is difficult to know how these changes are actually going to work in practice, but that's why we must be even more vigilant than normal to look for the unintended consequences, to look for the way that this is going to impact those who are probably going through, whether they are a parent or whether they are a child, one of the most confronting and difficult times of their lives. So those consequences of changes in language, changes to definitions, changes to whether particular approaches are within the legislation or merely within the guidance advice can actually make a fundamental difference to the way these issues play out in real life. In the few minutes left to me this evening, I will go briefly to equal shared parental responsibility. I do fear that Labor's changes in this area have the risk of creating some uncertainty, potentially muddying the waters, and go further than the ALRC recommendation in this area. There was a clear recommendation from the ALRC that the presumption, as drafted, in the legislation previously should be changed to clarify it. Many across the legal profession raised concerns during the consultation on the exposure draft when it was released. The Family Law Practitioners Association of Western Australia in my home state supported a change in labelling for the reasons identified by the ALRC. The Hunter Valley Family Law Practitioners Association submitted that the legislation should contain a presumption of the kind recommended by the ALRC. The Family Law Practitioners Association of Queensland said the legislation removes a presently known pathway and questioned whether more known cases would be initiated on the question of parental responsibility alone. The Law Council of Australia noted the divergence of views among the profession. The problem that Labor says it wants to address is the misunderstanding of the presumption. The misunderstanding arises because, as it is presently drafted, the presumption is often conflated with equal time, and that is what the ALRC said should be clarified. The explanatory memorandum refers to the ALRC report, which found that the essence of the presumption was useful and should be retained. It says that the problem is that parents can enter into negotiations based on incorrect assumptions about their entitlements, so you have not a prescriptive recommendation from the ALRC but a very clear recommendation that said, 'Yes, there is a problem with what's currently in the legislation. Yes, we need to clean that up—' The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Order! It being 8.00 pm, you will be in continuation. ADJOURNMENT 99 ADJOURNMENT Israel 99 20:00 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I rise this evening in support of the motion moved earlier today regarding the Hamas attacks on Israel and to echo the contributions of party leaders, in particular the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Birmingham. Eighty years ago, when the full extent of the Holocaust emerged, Australia and its democratic allies declared, 'Never again.' The massacre perpetrated by Hamas last Saturday resulted in the greatest loss of Jewish life in a single day since the Second World War. A recent letter signed by survivors of the Holocaust captures powerfully both the surprise and horror of the tragic events witnessed by the world: Today, we witnessed the worst killing of Jews since the Holocaust. This is not what we expected in this final chapter of our lives. This is the reality we must keep in our minds and our hearts as events unfold—that, for many people of Jewish heritage around the world, their very right to existence is again under attack. In my home state, many have been motivated to show their solidarity. One is the Friends of Israel Western Australia, of which I'm a proud patron. They have said we must not allow ourselves to lazily accept the view that there are 'two sides' to this conflict and that the issue here is not one of conflict but of terrorism. There is no moral equivalence between actors where one fights according to the laws of war under international scrutiny and the other commits terrorist attacks that target children, the elderly and the unarmed. They have gone on to make the point that last week's attack was not politically motivated. Rather, Hamas carried out the attack because violent antisemitism is at the heart of its worldview. It is now beyond dispute that peace in the Middle East and, in particular, peace for the people of Palestine and Israel will not be possible so long as the influence of Hamas remains unchecked. As unforgivable as Hamas's actions are, they should not be our only focus. It is now clear that Iran played a central role in the attack on Israel. Australia should look to reimpose, as a bare minimum, sanctions on Iran focused on those within the regime who bear greatest responsibility. So long as Iran is determined to support terrorism that results in the death of innocent people, it must be held accountable for its actions. It is, of course, not for us to tell Israel how to respond. It will do what it must do to protect its borders and its people. Our task is to support our much valued ally and to reassure the Australian Jewish population that, so long as they are here, they will be safe from the race fuelled violence that many of their kin must now defend themselves against. We can start by taking a far tougher line on the antisemitic rallies of the type witnessed in Sydney recently. These shameful demonstrations were occurring as Israeli soldiers uncovered the bodies of murdered babies and as parents were being told their children they thought were attending a music festival had been gunned down or taken hostage. Freedom of speech applies equally in our society, and it was illuminating to see who showed their true colours by supporting that outbreak of ignorance in Sydney. However, we must never fail our Jewish diaspora, which has made such a remarkable contribution to the business, cultural and academic life of Australia. If there is one ray of hope from any of this, it is my unwavering belief that the state of Israel will rise, as it has done before, from this place of unimaginable pain to a world beacon of freedom and prosperity, a country where not only Jewish people but people from all creeds and backgrounds can enjoy one of the most unique, beautiful and, indeed, wonderfully privileged countries in the world. In the end, of course, their victory will not merely be their continued survival but their flourishing. Senate adjourned at 20:04