﻿
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2023-10-17</date>
    <parliament.no>2</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>0</period.no>
    <chamber>Senate</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>1</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;" />
            <a href="Chamber" type="">Tuesday, 17 October 2023</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The PRESIDENT (Senator </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">the Hon. </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Sue Lines</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">)</span> took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.</span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Line" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Line"> </span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tabling</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Meeting</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Family Law Amendment Bill 2023, Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r7011" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Family Law Amendment Bill 2023</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r7009" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>1</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Albanese government has committed to ensuring the family law system is safer, is more accessible, is simpler to use and delivers justice and fairness for all Australian families. This is a significant task but successive reviews of the family law system over the last decade have provided us with valuable guidance about where our priorities should lie.</para>
<para>These bills send a strong message that the best interests of children should be the central concern of the family law system. Passage of these bills provides an important opportunity to break down barriers to understanding the law, deliver on our commitment to value and listen to children's views in matters affecting them, and ensure the family law courts have all the critical family violence, child abuse and neglect risk information they need to make a decision in the best interests of children.</para>
<para>The needs of every child are unique. The Family Law Amendment Bill and the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill will ensure all children involved in the family law system have their needs met as effectively and safely as possible. I encourage the Senate to support these bills.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Original question, as amended, agreed to.</para>
<para>Bills read a second time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>In Committee</title>
            <page.no>2</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I table four supplementary explanatory memoranda relating to the government amendments to be moved to these bills, and I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023. The addendum responds to matters raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The coalition will be moving a number of amendments later in the committee stage. In the first instance I have a number of questions in relation to schedule 1, the parenting framework. I'll start with the objects and principles. I commence with the changes to the objects and principles of the parenting framework. As it's currently drafted, the act explicitly sets out just four objects. The first one is ensuring that children have the benefit of both their parents having meaningful involvement in their lives to the maximum extent consistent with the best interests of the child. Minister, why did the government decide that it was no longer necessary to make clear that the object of the parenting framework is to make sure that children have the benefit of both their parents having meaningful involvement in their lives?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator Cash, for the question. Existing section 60B of the Family Law Act, which contains the objects and principles, of part VII substantially overlaps with section 60CC, the best-interests factors, with a number of inconsistencies in wording. The ALRC found that many stakeholders found this overlap confusing and misunderstood the interaction between the objects and principles in the substantive law, incorrectly assuming that they would directly affect decision-making. Accordingly, recommendation 4 of the ALRC report recommended full repeal of section 60B. The bill repeals the majority of existing section 60B and substitutes the current lengthy and overlapping content with two short objects. This removes duplication and operates as a clear statement of policy intent to assist users to interpret part VII.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I turn now to the other objects. The other objects say that the intent of the parenting framework is to protect children from physical or psychological harm, ensure that they receive adequate and proper parenting and ensure that parents fulfil their duties and meet their responsibilities concerning children. I think, certainly in terms of the feedback I've been given, that those things I have just stated would not be controversial. Why did the government decide to remove those stated objects?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator Cash. Legislation commonly includes objects provisions to provide context, indicate the legislative purpose and assist users to interpret legislation in line with the parliament's intent. Whilst the ALRC recommended removal of the objects and principles provision, the government considered that simplification would still achieve the aims of the ALRC recommendation by eliminating duplication and confusion about the interaction of section 60B and section 60CC whilst still capturing the primary policy objective of part VII. The simplified objects provision emphasises the consideration of the children's best interests in decision-making, including by ensuring their safety. We're also making clear on the face of the Family Law Act that part VII is to be interpreted in a way that is consistent with Australia's international obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In terms of that answer, what I read out both in my first question and in my second question related to the changes to the objects and principles of the parenting framework. I set out what the objects and principles are, as currently drafted, and asked you a number of questions, to which you responded. The changes, however—in the context of talking through this issue with various people—would completely remove what are considered to be the very clear objects of the parenting framework. In effect, what's been done completely removes them—so they're now gone—and then replaces them with a new provision which says that the objects of the parenting framework are 'to ensure that the best interests of children are met, including by ensuring their safety' and to implement the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.</para>
<para>In describing what our parenting framework tries to achieve, the only things you specifically name are safety and a UN convention. What therefore appears to be lacking—or, should I say, the feedback is that it is lacking—is anything about the benefits of a meaningful parent-child relationship and anything about the responsibilities and benefits of parenting. The issue that then arises is that by replacing those objects your government is sending a very clear message that the object of the parenting framework is no longer to ensure children get the benefit of both of their parents having meaningful involvement in their lives. The message that has been conveyed to me is that, in family law matters, the bill's implementation of a UN convention that most Australians have never read is more important for a child than proper parenting and a meaningful relationship with both parents. In terms of the changed objects, what do you say to the very many Australians who think that those issues I have read out are important and are now missing in the act?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The word 'meaningful' was not included in the best-interests factors recommended by the ALRC. The bill does not include this term, to avoid potential confusion about its meaning. Although case law has attempted to clarify and define what a meaningful relationship means over time—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Scarr, on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Scarr</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>To give Senator Chisholm an opportunity, I think that's not addressing the particular question that was raised. That's a different issue and it is an issue which will be raised in terms of the use of 'meaningful', but the particular question Senator Cash raised was about the taking out of the objectives and simply having a reference to the UN convention. I just want to give the minister an opportunity to give the right response.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's not a point of order. That's a contribution. We're in the committee phase, so it's slightly different. The minister can finish his answer. If you have a difficulty with the answer, since it's free-flowing in committee, you can then raise that issue. In normal debate it would have been appropriate.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As I was saying, the bill does not include this term, to avoid potential confusion about its meaning.</para>
<para>In relation to why relevant articles are not listed specifically in the objects clause or why objects and principles that reflect the convention are being removed, it is not necessary to list the relevant articles and the principles behind them in the objects section as these are largely incorporated into the proposed new best-interests factors in section 60CC. They include article 3(1), best interests of the child; article 9(3), relationship with parents; article 12(1) and 12(2), views of the child; article 19(1), protection of the child; and article 30, right to benefit from culture.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you for that answer. Do you accept that a vast majority of separating couples won't be legally represented?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think most litigants are unrepresented in the Family Court.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>And therein lies the issue. These unrepresented litigants are going through what one might describe—it certainly has been described to me and, I'm sure, to others—as a very trying and very distressing time in their lives. They will then make their decisions and be unable to look at material that's buried in explanatory notes, unless, of course, we're now handing out post-it notes here and sticking them there. 'These are the factors that need to be taken into consideration.' I genuinely do not believe they are going to be looking up a United Nations convention.</para>
<para>You have removed something fundamental from the parenting framework. I have to ask again: does the government accept that it's removed something fundamental from the framework? In your own words, most people in litigation are unrepresented litigants. They won't have access to the guidance in the objects and principles. How are they meant to work out what is going to guide them through a very distressing time in their lives and, in particular, through a court system?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What I would point out, Senator Cash, is that the ALRC found the current objects and principles confusing and duplicative. What the government feel we've got right is ensuring that the family law system is safer, is more accessible, is simpler to use and delivers justice and fairness for all Australian families.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, how can it possibly make sense to take out some clearly worded principles and objectives on the importance of a child having a meaningful relationship with both parents and then to incorporate in its totality, by reference, a UN convention which deals with matters relating to parenting and other matters disconnected from those dealt with in the schedule, and say that that actually simplifies the legislation? One of your objectives is incorporating, by reference, an entire UN convention. How could that possibly be construed as simplifying the principles and objectives clause? I recognise, Minister, that you're not responsible for the drafting of this legislation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator Scarr, for the compliment there, potentially. As I mentioned in the previous answer to Senator Cash, around the ALRC finding the current objects and principles confusing and duplicative, the government have gone down the process we have with other legislation, which I mentioned earlier, to ensure that the family law system is safer and more accessible. We feel as though we've got that right.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can I now also follow up that line of questioning—in particular what Senator Scarr put to you. Can we run through, step by step, some of the things that this government is removing from the act? I ask you: do you agree that children have the right to know and be cared for by both of their parents, regardless of whether their parents are married, are separated, have never married or have never lived together?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>One of the factors that still must be considered is the children still having a relationship with their parents.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Where do I find that in the objects and, in particular, in the UN convention that is referred to?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>CHISHOLM (—) (): It's one of the six factors. The amendment addresses stakeholder concern that the new paragraph 60CC(2)(e), referring to the benefit to the child of being able to maintain a relationship with their parents or other significant people, may not capture situations where a relationship with a child has not yet been established—for example, where a parent has not yet had the opportunity to form a relationship due to the age of the child.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>With all due respect, we're talking about section 60B, and what I've put forward is not in the objects of the parenting framework. You've already stated, for the record, that the majority of people going through the litigation are going to be unrepresented. For those of you who don't know what unrepresented means, it means I don't have the benefit of legal counsel. It means I'm fronting to the court by myself and I am presenting my case. I may have access to the Family Law Act. I am then expected to go: 'Right, section 60B—let me read that. Oh, gosh, that's what it says.' That's as opposed to flipping it open and reading the objects and principles and having half an idea as to where I might stand, seeing as I don't have the benefit of counsel because I can't afford it and I'm now going to be arguing my case for access myself. Do you agree that children have a right to spend time on a regular basis with and communicate on a regular basis with both of their parents and other people significant to their care, welfare and development, such as grandparents and other relatives?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The parenting framework is simplified so that litigants know what to lead on objects which were misleading. The new paragraph 60CC(2)(e) provides that the court must consider the benefit to a child of 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.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In relation to the answer that you gave, could you please take us through which objects were misleading.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>CHISHOLM (—) (): The ALRC recommended the wholesale repeal.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Do you agree that parents should jointly share duties and responsibilities concerning the care, welfare and development of their children?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Where it's in the best interests of the child. That would be determined on a case-by-case basis.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Then why has this been removed from the Family Law Act?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It has been included in the best-interest factors.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>But not in the objects—is that what you're saying? Okay. In what section are the best-interest factors, for the benefit of those listening in who may find themselves as unrepresented litigants in a family court dispute?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Section 60CC(2).</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I know Senator Cash has touched on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I would like to go over that. As to the legislation: Australia signed, or ratified, the United Nation's Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1990. Article 7 of the convention says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The child shall … have … as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.</para></quote>
<para>Article 9 says that signatory nations shall:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… 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.</para></quote>
<para>Article 18 says that the signatory nations shall:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child.</para></quote>
<para>Minister, can you direct me to anywhere in your bill that states and expresses these words?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>They are reflected in the proposed new objects of the bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>But, Minister, why not make it expressly clear in the principles and objectives, rather than force Australian families to have to have recourse to a UN convention and try and find the articles that Senator Hanson referred to? Why not make it express, on the face of the principles and objectives, rather than referring Australian citizens to a UN convention? And good luck trying to find them! How is that simplifying the system? How is that assisting Australian families who may be going through one of most traumatic periods in their life?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The new best interests of the child are reflected in best-interests factors.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, if you say it's in the objectives, basically it's not in the legislation. When a court looks at legislation, that's where they can determine the outcome on behalf of the parents. If this is not reflected in the bill whatsoever, the court has to determine what is in best interests of the child. The fact is that the UN Convention clearly states that the child has a right to a relationship with both parents. That is not clearly defined in the bill whatsoever. Therefore, in the court's decision, they are going to look at: 'What's in the best interests of the child?' It depends on the argument that's put up before the courts, as well. If a lot of parents are representing themselves, they cannot have the advantage of clearly putting across their case to the judge and of expressing their concerns; therefore, a lot of parents are denied the right to see their children. Evidence has also stated that a lot of lies are told in a courtroom, as we have heard from a former judge of the family law courts, David Collier, who said that allegations of child sexual abuse were being increasingly invented by mothers to stop fathers from seeing their children. That's directly from a judge who was in the courts for 14 years. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">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.</para></quote>
<para>I think is important for you to put directly into the bill that the child has a right to see both parents. I want you to explain to me the rights of the child. Please explain to me and the people of Australia your definition of, and where you've put in your bill, the rights of the child or the best interests of the child. What is the definition of 'the best interests of the child'?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The best interests are clearly in the proposed new factors to be considered and also as part of the international obligations in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which are also referenced in the—</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, that's completely the opposite of what we've said is in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. You have just said the opposite when you talk about the rights of the child. You referred to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Under the convention, the child has a right to both parents. Why is the government proposing to take out section 61DA, which provides for fifty-fifty shared parental responsibility?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Proposed section 60CC(2)(e) says the court must consider:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the benefit to the child of 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.</para></quote>
<para>This will be determined through a lens of whether a relationship is in the best interest of the child on the facts of each case.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I note again, Minister, that you've referred to the best-interests factors and how it just refers to a relationship, and the government is proposing to omit the word 'meaningful'. At the moment, it is a meaningful relationship with both parents, and, for reasons that totally elude me, the government seems determined to take out the word 'meaningful'. Is the minister aware that the Law Council of Australia's submission said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">As it has been the product of considerable jurisprudence—</para></quote>
<para>that means it has been tried and tested in courts—</para>
<quote><para class="block">over the last two decades which is available to guide the Court's consideration of the child's relationship with their parents and other people significant to them, it would be undesirable for the Bill to abandon this concept—</para></quote>
<para>of a meaningful relationship? Elsewhere, the Law Council of Australia's submission said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the Law Council's Family Law Section and the majority of its Constituent Bodies—</para></quote>
<para>the Law Council's constituent bodies include the Queensland Law Society, from our home state of Queensland—</para>
<quote><para class="block">have expressed concerns that to remove consideration of a <inline font-style="italic">meaningful relationship</inline> may lead the court to possibly consider that <inline font-style="italic">any</inline> relationship may be acceptable, with a consequent reduction in time and communication arrangements as being sufficient to meet that lower threshold.</para></quote>
<para>Why, Minister, is the government hell-bent on introducing a 'lower threshold' for the relationship between children and their parents? Don't all children deserve a meaningful relationship with both parents if that can be managed whilst the safety of children is protected?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator Scarr. The word 'meaningful' was not included in the best-interests factors recommended by the ALRC. The bill does not include this term, to avoid potential confusion about its meaning. For example, 'meaningful' can be misinterpreted as referring to being meaningful to the parent rather than the child or to mean 'more time' to non-legally-trained users of the Act. Case law has attempted to clarify and define what a meaningful relationship means over time. However, ambiguity and confusion remain, particularly for self-represented litigants or parties who try to reach agreement outside of court. The government's drafting makes it clear that what sort of relationship would benefit the individual child is a question of fact, to be determined by considering the individual circumstances of each case.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We keep referring to unrepresented litigants in the line of questioning pursued by both Senator Hanson and Senator Scarr and in relation to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. There will be many parents—and we can imagine them; we have spoken to them, and we may well know them—who are going through a separation and are not legally trained. Like most people, they wouldn't know the first thing about the actual legal framework of family law. If you look at the parenting framework as is now drafted and as is before the Australian Senate, you will see that a court deciding your matter will try to implement the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Just for the public's reference—for those who, when this bill does eventually go through, will be operating under these new provisions—where does a member of the public find the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My understanding is that you can find it online.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That is just fantastic, Senator Hanson, because people out there have so much time! That is the good news for them. Thank goodness they can find it online! I'm assuming my search term will be 'UN convention on rights of child'. I have so much time, as an unrepresented litigant going through one of the most distressing periods of my life, to google—if I have access to internet and I actually understand that is what I now need to do—'UN convention on the rights of a child'. I thought we were meant to be simplifying the parenting framework. I would have thought a simplified framework would have all of this stated in the objects, not that it would incorporate a reference to a UN treaty. The good news for everybody is: you can google it; it's accessible online. So, in effect, when a person who doesn't have any legal training—let's go with the majority of unrepresented litigants—just wants to find out what a court is going to do when deciding a matter affecting their children, this legislation effectively says: 'Google it. You can find it online.' Is that correct?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The whole purpose of minimising the objects is that litigants are now clear that the best-interests factors should guide their evidence. That's why the best-interests factors also incorporate key elements of the convention.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>How many articles are there in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child as a whole, and how many of them are relevant to a parent going through separation?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We'll come back to you, Senator.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>With all due respect, Minister, you have the relevant staff there, you have people from the department, yet you need to come back to me. What do you expect a member of the public to do? The minister's office, you and the department are unable to answer that question, yet you expect an unrepresented litigant to put in a search term to find a UN convention. You don't know how many articles there are—there are 54—or how many of them are relevant to a parent going through separation. Is there going to be a step-by-step guide put up on the Attorney-General's website, the family law website, that actually says to parents, 'This is what you need to do and this is how you do it,' if the Attorney-General's staff and the Attorney-General's department, who are sitting there advising you, are not able to tell you?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator Cash. I did have the number, 54, but you beat me to it. The key ones are reflected in the best-interests factors.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, I'd like to go back to 60CC(2)(a), where it says the court determines the child's best interests. Can you tell me—you haven't really clarified it with me—what is 'the child's best interests'? Where is it throughout the bill? How can the court determine what the child's best interests are?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That will be determined by the courts on a case-by-case basis.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>A lot of the problem these days is false allegations that are being brought before the courts, especially with domestic violence. They are a lot of the allegations put forward before the courts, and a lot of parents on both sides, male and female, are not able to see their children because of domestic violence allegations. How is the court going to determine whether there is truth or not in the allegations put up—whether it is in the best interests of the child?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm sure the courts would look at all of the evidence before them.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The fact is domestic violence allegations can be brought up in a family law court where they haven't previously been determined in a court to see if they are false or real—no charge has been laid; they're basically allegations. Do you believe that, when dealing with the custody of children, if there are domestic violence allegations they should be determined in a court prior to being brought before the family law court?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Best-interests factors include the considerations of safety.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, you didn't answer my question. I said, 'Do you believe that domestic violence allegations should be determined in a court prior to them being brought before the family law court?' Why I persist with this is that, in 90 per cent of hearings in which allegations have been made, the judge found no risk of sexual harm to the child or children. In 25 per cent of these cases the allegations were found to be deliberately misleading, and in another 46 per cent of these cases the allegations were mistaken. In eight per cent of these cases the allegations were not believed by the judge. In 62 per cent of these cases the judge awarded shared or sole parental responsibility to the parent against whom the allegations were made.</para>
<para>Given these facts, we have a big problem with false allegations that have being brought against the other parent in the court system. We have a system which, as your bill clearly states, is going to leave it to the courts to determine how to handle these allegations based on who presents the best case and who has the best lawyer. If these domestic violence allegations are not determined in a court prior to the family law court, how is anyone going to get to the truth of the matter? It is in the best interests of the child that these lies are exposed and dealt with, rather than allowing them to go on, because they lead to a parent being denied the right to see their children. Even if they do get access, they have to wait months—and it costs them hundreds of dollars—to see the children in contact centres. Where in the bill are you dealing with these false allegations and these issues?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have nothing to add to the previous answer.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Because you don't know and you don't understand, and that's reflected in the bill. You put out a bill that you absolutely rushed through. Looking at the pages and pages of amendments that you've made to your own bill, it's clear to me that you don't know what you're doing. And you didn't listen to the over 1,700 submissions that were put in through the family law system inquiry that I got up. The fact is you are not answering the main issue to do with the family law court, which is the domestic violence allegations, and you have not done anything about dealing with that in the bill. Minister, do you admit that there are false allegations in family violence cases in the family law courts?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That's not something that I've considered, Senator Hanson. I'm here to deal with this bill. If you've got questions about it, I'm happy to attempt to answer them.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If that's something you have disregarded and you're not interested in listening to, then you shouldn't be handling this portfolio, because that is the biggest problem that we have in our family law courts. You say it's in the best interests of the child. It's in the best interests of the child to get to the bottom of why these false allegations and lies are being made against the other parent, stopping them from seeing their child, and it's in the best interests of the child for them to have a connection with both parents and their extended families, grandparents and everyone as well, so you have failed in your duty to protect these children and those people that are being lied about in the court system.</para>
<para>You talk about what's in the best interests of the child. I want to ask you this question. Under your bill, you have here: 'Aboriginal children return to the family based on their connection to their culture'. That absolutely flies in the face of the legislation that states the best interests of the child. You're stating that because they're Aboriginal they must go back to the family. Well, for a lot of these families it's not in the child's best interests to go back to them. Why have you defined Aboriginal children clearly in your bill and not all Australians?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>To clarify comments around family violence, the government think that that is a significant factor in family law cases—not false allegations, but family violence is a significant factor in family law matters, and the government is well aware of that. So I disagree with your proclamations in that regard. In regard to this issue of reference to Indigenous children in the legislation, that is based on an ALRC recommendation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, there are a lot of recommendations made by groups and different organisations, but it's up to the government of the day to actually make the legislation with reference to it. You, here, have clearly treated one Australian totally different to another Australian when you say that the child should go back to the family because they're an Aboriginal, yet you stand here, for an hour or so, stating that it's in the best interests of the child. We clearly know there are a lot of Aboriginal children who are abused, sexually abused and left uncared for, but you say in domestic family law courts that they should go back to the family. Are you really telling me that it is in the best interests of the child to be returned to that family?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think if you've got specific instances that you're aware of you should refer that to authorities. Obviously, the courts will act in what is the best interests of the children.</para>
<para>The schedule implements recommendation 9 of the Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry into the family law system:</para>
<quote><para class="block">should be amended to provide a definition of member of the family that is inclusive of any Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander concept of family that is relevant in the particular circumstances of the case.</para></quote>
<para>Unlike similar definitions in state and territory legislation, the definitions of 'relative' and 'member of the family' in the Family Law Act do not currently incorporate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kinship systems and concepts of family. The intent of this amendment is to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander concepts of family and kinship, which encompass a wider range of individuals than presently recognised in the act. The amendments reflect the importance of the court recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander concepts of family when making decisions about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children.</para>
<para>Schedule 3 of the bill therefore expands the definition of member of the family in subsection 4(1AB) by amending the definition of relative of a person in new subsection 4(1AD). New subsection 4(1AD) outlines that for the purpose of paragraph (1AB)(ea) if a person is related to an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child in accordance with the child's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture, including but not limited to any kinship systems of that culture, the person is a relative of the child. This new amendment includes reference to kinship as requested within recommendation 4 of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee's report. Schedule 3 of the bill also expands the definition of relative of a child in subsection 4(1) to ensure this is definition is consistent with the amended definition of relative of a person in new subsection 4(1AD).</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Could I return to the line of question in relation to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. We've established that there are 54 articles. You started to go through how many of them are relevant to a parent going through separation, so I'll get you to expand on that particular answer. Can I also ask you then to elaborate on or to answer which of the articles in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child does this parenting framework implement?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Article 3.1, best interests of the child; article 9.3, relationship with parents; article 12.1 and 12.2 views of the child; article 19.1 protection of the child; and article 30, right to benefit from culture—they're the best-interests factors that reflect the convention.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In relation to those articles—was it 3.1, 9.3, 12 (I wasn't sure if you said 'point something'), 19.1 and 30?—what guidance is going to be given to unrepresented litigants who are going through the court system that they are the articles that they need to surf through on the internet when all 54 pop up?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Just for clarification, it was 12.1 and 12.2, views of the child. These are reflected in the objects, best-interests factors.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>With all due respect, Minister, it would appear that even you are confused by the answer, but that is just an observation. The problem that I am getting—and I think Senator Hanson and Senator Scarr are too—is in terms of (a) what the government is doing in relation to removing the objects at this point in time and (b) what you are putting in and what you are incorporating by reference. You've decided the objects of the parenting framework should direct a person—we're going to go with the unrepresented litigant, because someone with a lawyer is going to be paying them a lot of money, and that lawyer is going to be able to say, 'I'm going to go through the UN Convention for you,' but the unrepresented litigant does not have that luxury. But, based on everything I've heard to date, there is no guidance on what that means and what impact it has, because a person needs to actually understand how to interpret the particular articles.</para>
<para>Why you chose to put this in the legislation I no longer know, but to the average person, I would humbly submit, it is fundamentally unclear. The poor person or parent who is having to look at this bill as amended by the government now is going to have to go through some interpretive process relating to an international convention, work out what that means—again, during one of the most stressful periods of their life—and then articulate to the court why they should have access to their children. Can we just go through some of the articles? I'll read out article 5 of the UN convention. I'm hoping this is actually going to help parents. I don't know—they might be able to pick up the committee stage of this bill to work out what they're meant to do. The good news is: the first thing we've established is that you've got to google it. That's a good step in the right direction. This is what article 5 states:</para>
<quote><para class="block">States Parties—</para></quote>
<para>Well, I hope unrepresented litigants know what 'states parties' are—</para>
<quote><para class="block">shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention.</para></quote>
<para>What guidance do you give to a parent in terms of how they will interpret that when figuring out what a court is going to do in terms of custody of their children?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The best-interests factors have the relevant points of the convention.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Again, I'm going to read article 5 for the record, because I'm personally confused by it. I'm not in an emotional state, I'm not going through divorce and I don't have children that I'm wanting to see. So let's go through it again to give guidance to mum and dad who are potentially going to be looking for that guidance. They're onto the UN Convention and they're looking at article 5. It says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention.</para></quote>
<para>Again I ask: how does a parent interpret that?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There will be supporting fact sheets and education materials that will be provided by the department. The Law Council supports many elements of this bill, including the simplification of 60CC, best-interests factors, and the insertion of a standalone best-interests factor for matters involving a First Nations child; the codification of Rice v Asplund in relation to reconsideration of final parenting orders; the proposed simplification of division 13A of part VII and contravention proceedings; the introduction of harmful proceeding orders; and bringing forward the review of the operation of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia divisions 1 and 2 by two years.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Wow, I am even more confused, but anyway. Let's now go to article 17 and see if we can get some guidance, on the record, for people who are having to interpret the UN Convention on the Rights of The child, and that's if they have actually managed to google it, find it, work through the 54 clauses then work through which ones are now relevant to them and the case that they're presenting to the courts. This is what article 17 says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">State parties recognize—</para></quote>
<para>Again, I hope people know what 'state parties' are—'</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">An opposition senator interjecting—</inline></para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Exactly—I mean, seriously.</para>
<quote><para class="block">the important function performed by the mass media—</para></quote>
<para>I don't know where this is going.</para>
<quote><para class="block">and shall ensure that the child has access to information and material from a diversity of national and international sources, especially those aimed at the promotion of his or her social, spiritual and moral well-being and physical and mental health. To this end, States Parties shall:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">… … …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) Encourage the production and dissemination of children's books;</para></quote>
<para>Can I please get some guidance as to what that means in the context of family law proceedings and the parenting framework?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The current objects of the act refer to this convention. We're not removing it or changing it. That is the reality of the situation. As I mentioned, in relation to the relevant articles, the principle behind them in the object section, these are largely incorporated into the proposed best-interest factors at section 60CC. And as I mentioned before in my previous answer, there will be supporting fact sheets and education materials that the department deems relevant.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We will come to section 60CC in due course. What you are removing are all of the other parts that I read out at the commencement of the committee stage; therefore, what is left is a reference to safety and a general reference to a UN convention, and we're working through what the clauses of the UN conventions mean. The good news is, though—and I have taken it from this—for those who are going to be going through this process, isn't it fantastic that there are going to be some fact sheets provided by the department, because you are also going to know that you want to google fact sheets on the Attorney-General's website. Can I ask when will these fact sheets be prepared, or have they been prepared, and are you able to please table a copy of them?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Work has started to those. I don't have a timetable on when they will be available.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, I noted that you made a reference to the submissions of the Law Society.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thought you did previously in relation to the objects and principles clause. Excuse me if you didn't. The Law Council of Australia said about the reference to the UN convention being in the principles and objectives:</para>
<list>despite the Explanatory Memorandum stating that the Convention 'may be considered as an interpretive aid to Part VII', 15 reference to the Convention may in fact be a source of confusion and create unintended consequences without adding anything of substance. As there is a high proportion of self-represented litigants in the family law jurisdiction, this may lead to misguided and protracted arguments about whether a proposed parenting order is consistent with the Convention (with attendant resource demands).</list>
<para>Why has the government not responded appropriately to the concerns of the Law Council of Australia?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think we have gone through the position of the government regarding the convention. I do note that it's in the current legislation. And I do note that the opposition have put forward numerous amendments and haven't included one around the convention being removed.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can you answer a question. Do you believe that parents should have rights in the family law court?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Sorry, I missed that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>You talk about the best interests of the child. Do you think that parents should have rights in the family law court?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Children have rights; parents have responsibilities.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That's not the question I asked. Do you believe that parents should have rights in the family law court?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senato</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>r CHISHOLM (—) (): I answered the question.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Then I'll refer to section 51(xxii) of our Constitution. It says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">… … …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(xxii) divorce and matrimonial causes; and in relation thereto, parental rights, and the custody and guardianship of infants;</para></quote>
<para>It basically states in our Constitution that there are parental rights. You've just talked to me about parental responsibility. That is not rights. Do you agree that a parent has a right to have a connection with their child and see them on a regular basis?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The legislation that we're dealing with here is about the best interests of the child.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>With this legislation, you have not taken into consideration the Constitution that we have, which states the parental rights under the section. So you have not done the right thing by the people of Australia in putting that into your bill, because that is clearly what it's about. Yes, I agree—and no-one will argue the fact—about what's in the child's best interest, but parents have been denied the right to see their children based on allegations and lies and what the judge determines. I know one case where six judges denied—actually, no, they didn't deny. They allowed that parent to have access to the child. It was contested, and it took the seventh judge to overturn it. So six judges were wrong, and one was right. The thing is that there are parental rights. Parents have parental rights to have that connection with their children. Where is this reflected in the bill? It's not just about the child's rights. It's also about parents, extended families and grandparents' rights. Do you agree with that—that they have a right to see and have a connection with their children if they are not abusive to that child?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We believe that the best interests of the child is the most important factor.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That's a very poor, pathetic answer to me, as far as I'm concerned. You're not answering the question, because you don't even know how to answer it, and it's reflected in your bill. All you've got is the best interests of the child, which goes against the UN convention that we're a signatory to—the declaration. You have actually disregarded the constitutional parental rights. Your whole bill is going to cause more controversy and divisions between families. You're actually going to cause more problems in the family law courts with the bill that you've done here. I want to go to another thing. Do you believe that both parents should have access to all documentation with regard to health and education for the benefit of the child?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If it's in the best interests of the child.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If you've got parents where one has the child two weeks at a time and the other one has the child a week at a time, should both parents have access to that documentation—their health records, Medicare card, school documentation and report cards and everything like that?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It would be on a case-by-case basis that would be determined by the courts.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, do you have children?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That's not really relevant to this discussion.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, you answered the question as if you had no children, you have no heart, you have no understanding of what you're talking about. Because all parents have an interest. If the other parent has the child for a week in their care—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Scarr, on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Scarr</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I respect the points that Senator Hanson is making, but I also deeply respect Senator Chisholm, and I think if all of us could attempt to ask the relevant questions without making it personal, that might be of assistance.</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I am just going to make a remark in relation to Senator Scarr's point of order. I am not convinced it was necessarily a point of order under the standing orders, but it was certainly an appropriate reminder to everyone in the chamber to conduct the debate as respectfully as they can.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Scarr. I appreciate what you're saying, but the fact is sheer frustration is actually bringing it out of me, because I am not happy with the answers that I'm getting from the minister with regard to the most important piece of legislation that's in this parliament at the moment, that has affected people's lives for decades and the impact that it has had on parents and children and grandparents and extended families. I'm sorry, but I'm getting frustrated at the weak excuses where all he can say is 'the rights of the child.'</para>
<para>The rights of the child are very important, by all means, but when we know what happens in the court system, I think that people are looking for answers. I think our whole family law system is busted. It's done and dusted. The whole thing should be thrown out and redrafted again. It has destroyed so many families. I hear it on a daily basis. I've been associated with this since 1996. I have been dealing with this. I have gone through it personally myself—not the court system that a lot of people have gone through—but I have. I've seen my children go through it. I've seen family members, friends, people who contact me, absolutely broken, destroyed. Suicides have happened because of this, not only with parents but also with children. Children have been murdered because of this, out of sheer frustration from the general public out there who said 'What is happening in that place? Why can't they see what is happening?' These judges are not held to account. No-one seems to be held to account. The lawyers keep a case going purely for the money that they are getting out of it. It has become a money-making business at the cost of people that are actually losing their homes, their lives, their businesses and their families. All we have here is failed legislation. It will continue to fail until you really address the real problems with it.</para>
<para>On top of that now we see organisations and individuals using domestic violence as an excuse to get their way, whether they're vindictive against the other parent or they don't want them to see their children, or they're using it for their own joy. I don't know how they can possibly do it. But that is the problem that we are having. I have letters here. Emails have come through to me all the time. I feel that this has just been buried. It has been the biggest issue that has come across my desk in the time I have been in the parliament. I know that David Leyonhjelm was dealing with it. When he left the parliament he said, 'Go to Senator Hanson. She is the only one who is actually dealing with this.' Because no other members of parliament here, I don't think they take the time to understand or debate it or discuss it or say what the real issues are involved in this, because they are all terrified to mention domestic violence false allegations, because you get howled down by the Greens. You get howled down by the bloody Labor Party. Excuse me. I retract that. You get howled down by the Labor Party.</para>
<para>The fact is that this is happening. You can't continue to bury your head in the sand. We have an opportunity now to make a big difference to this. In the inquiry which had, a joint inquiry with the House of Reps and the senators, there were 10 of us. You know what I found out? There were only three of us in that whole inquiry who had any knowledge of it, who had actually been through it. You might have heard it, but personally going through it to understand what is happening out there—this whole report that was handed down, everyone is side-stepping the whole issue without really going to the guts of the matter, what is happening in our family law courts.</para>
<para>The coalition tried to do something with the merger of the two courts. I fully agreed with that because you have to have more judges dealing with these issues to get the matters heard. That was very important. You had judges sitting there doing nothing—working nine hours a year, if that, or a few days a year. They were just waiting to retire and get their pension. People were waiting for years. Determinations weren't brought down for years. Determinations weren't brought down for that period of time and parents were sitting there waiting. In the meantime the kids grew up.</para>
<para>Parents say, 'I was denied the right to see my child.' When the child catches up with them years later they say: 'Why didn't you fight for me? Why didn't you do something? Why aren't I part of your life?' I met a father and daughter like that. She said: 'The courts denied me the right to see my father. Now that I have grown up and I'm in my late 20s we've actually connected. Now I understand his story. Now I understand he was denied his rights in the courts. They denied him the right to see me.'</para>
<para>Minister, I said to you before that parents are denied the right to see their children because of false allegations. The courts take the stance, 'We better not let that parent near the child just in case there is some truth in the matter.' There may be no former court case and no proof—there's nothing but allegations. They deny the parent the right to see their child. Then they say, 'We'll allow you to see your child, but you're going to have to be in a contact centre.' Guess what? They have to wait at least four to six months—sometimes even longer than that—to even get into a contact centre. On top of that they have to pay hundreds of dollars to the contact centre for them to see their child. Because it has been such a long period of time when it goes back to court years later they say: 'Because you haven't had much connection with your child we must take this very slowly. We're going to let you see the child for only a few hours a night.' This is what's happening in the system. Nothing in your bills really addresses this, Minister. There is nothing at all.</para>
<para>When I spoke about these health issues a father told me: 'I have the child most of the time. I can't even get a Medicare card. When the child gets sick I can't take them to the doctor because the mother won't give me the Medicare card.' If he wants the child's reports from the school to know how well they're doing, the school won't give them to him without the mother's permission. It's alright for the stepfather to get them, but not the actual father. And there had been no form of abuse of that child whatsoever—none. So the parent who has the custody of the child has access to everything and the other parent can't get anything unless they go begging to the mother, and the government department won't give them a Medicare card without the mother's permission. That's what I'm saying to you, Minister. A lot of the parents who have the child are on welfare. They can't afford the $90-plus to see a doctor. They might get the rebate back to help them. Where is their right to have access to the Medicare card for the child? Why isn't that in these bills?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHO</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>LM (—) (): Thanks, Senator Hanson. I think it would be fair to say that the approaches of the now Labor government and you on these matters have been divergent for a period of time. I do acknowledge that this is something that you have been vocal about for a long period of time, but I think it would be safe to say that the view of the Labor Party in opposition and now in government has been different from yours on these matters.</para>
<para>The one thing I agree with you on is that it is really difficult for the people and families going through these scenarios. They are doing it really tough. I'm fortunate that I haven't gone through it myself, but I certainly know people who have and I have observed how challenging it can be for people. That's why this legislation is about making it simpler for people. That is the objective of the government; that's what we're trying to achieve. That is the legislation before us today.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to place a few things on the record. The Greens are really pleased to be supporting the changes to the Family Law Act that we're debating today, given that they will put children's welfare first in family matters. Overturning the regressive Howard-era changes to the Family Court system is long overdue. The women's safety sector and legal advocates have long called for a child safety focused court, and we are happy that these reforms move our laws closer to that goal. Since the Howard government rewrote Australia's family laws in 2006, we've seen the presumption of shared care weaponised, instead of the best interests of children coming first. We're very pleased to be able to pass amendments to the Family Law Act that are based on expert advice instead of the political grandstanding that's traumatised victims-survivors, put children at risk and provided a platform for hate and misinformation.</para>
<para>Gendered violence is at the core of the vast majority of cases in the family law system, and we know that children frequently bear the brunt of violent relationships and protracted legal matters. While these reforms are welcome, without more funding to courts and frontline family and domestic violence services—including legal services—delays, unequal representation and lack of support will continue to put women and children at risk. The Greens will continue to call for full funding for frontline family and domestic violence support services, including legal services and legal aid. We will also continue to call for comprehensive family and domestic violence education and trauma-informed training for the judiciary, legal practitioners, independent children's lawyers, family report writers, the police and all associated with the court process. If the Attorney-General wants these reforms to work—and we certainly want them to work—the government needs to stump up the funding for them to do so.</para>
<para>In conclusion, my question is: will we see a commitment to increase the funding to the courts both for training and to speed up the processing times for these decisions, and, crucially, will we also see a commitment to increased funding to family and domestic violence support services?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator Waters, for that contribution and for your support of the bill. In 2023-24, the government will direct $260 million annually to the Family Relationship Services Program. This includes a range of services for separating families and their children, including family relationship centres, family law counselling, family dispute resolution, children's contact services and the Family Relationship Advice Line. We've also provided further support for legal aid commissions. There's also support for two successful family law property programs in the 2023-24 budget, as well as other support that we've provided in increasing funding for family and domestic violence services. That will always remain a priority for the government, and I imagine any further announcements would be made in the budget context.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will make a comment in relation to the amendments that the coalition has circulated. We have circulated an amendment that leaves the current objects and principles intact. What the Labor Party has done is take these out. They're removing everything in the objects and principles except the reference to safety and the UN convention. Our amendment is to put them back into the act.</para>
<para>I'd just make some comments on the discussion that we've been having on the parenting framework, the objects and principles and what mum-and-dad unrepresented litigants, in particular, are now going to have to go through. The problem with the bill we have before us is that it removes, as I stated, the existing objects and principles and leaves nothing but the reference to safety and a general invitation to look at a UN convention, if you can even work out what that is. The objects clauses make clear to the court that the provisions implement Australia's obligations under international instruments and/or make clear the constitutional basis on which the parenting framework relies. What the minister has outlined in the discussion that we've had about this particular part of the act is exactly the problem. As a matter of principle, we have no issues with implementing international conventions. The issue with the approach that the Labor government has taken in relation to the bill we have before us is this. On the one hand, we have the minister saying that the amendments are for the benefit of people who make decisions about parenting in the shadow of the law. On the other hand, what they are then doing in this bill—and hence our amendment to bring those objects back into the act—is to strip away the guidance that might help those people who so desperately need it.</para>
<para>A parent might find it quite useful to know that, when deciding their case, a court will try to apply the principle that, 'Parents should agree about the future parenting of their children.' Instead, under the bill that we now have before us, all they have is a provision that tells them to go and look for the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. We've had evidence from the minister that it's online, so they can Google it. We also know that there are 54 articles and they don't all apply. In this case, they then need to work through the 54 articles to work out which ones are going to apply to them. If they can find the convention at all, as I said, they then have to wade through the convention to try and work out which articles are relevant. They then need to figure out whether the bill is referring to the provision which talks about the duties of the parents or the provision that deals with—and I still didn't get an answer in relation to article 17—encouraging the production and dissemination of children's books. I still have absolutely no idea what guidance I'm given in relation to that.</para>
<para>We're going to be faced with a situation, under this bill, where parents need to somehow translate a UN convention, which is an agreement about the obligations of nation states—if parents even know what state parties and nation states are—into guidance on parenting matters. As I said, we don't have a problem with the parliament saying through legislation that it's implementing international commitments. But look at the bill that we have in front of us. As Senator Hanson has said, this is a bill that touches so many people across Australia. It actually literally touches, to put it in plain English, mums and dads in their homes and mums and dads who are out there. It also has an impact on their kids and on critically important issues in peoples' lives, like family violence and the parenting of children.</para>
<para>The point throughout this part of the committee process is this. As to what this bill is now going to do—and we're only onto the objects of the act here, which is the bit that provides parents with the guidance they need going forward—Labor have created a fundamental lack of clarity on the face of the legislation. By removing the type of guidance which actually helps the average person without legal training, you create confusion, you reduce clarity and you create room for legal dispute and delay. Again, I ask the minister: Why did the government do this?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government did this because we believe that it does simplify. The ALRC found that the current provisions are largely duplicative of the best-interests factor, with inconsistencies in wording between the two provisions. The ALRC also found that many parties to proceedings misunderstood the interaction between the objectives and the principles and the substantive law, incorrectly assuming that provisions would directly affect decision-making. The consultation process on the bill showed that there is little support for the retention of the current objectives and principles in the context of a simplified parenting framework. The simplified objects clause proposed by the government makes a clear statement that the objects of the children section of the act is to ensure that their best interests are met.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have a few more questions on the objects. I know that other senators may have some questions in relation to this part. Do you agree that parents should agree about the future parenting of their children?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Where it's safe to do so.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Do you agree that children have a right to enjoy their culture, including a right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Where it's in their best interests.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In terms of the answer that you have provided, then, why is it that the only 'right to enjoy culture' that will remain in the Family Law Act, as a result of the changes that are currently before the Senate, is the 'right to enjoy Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture'?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOL</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>M (—) (): My understanding is that best-interests factors include the consideration of culture for all children.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On that basis, then, can you take me to the relevant part of the act that states that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Amended paragraph 60CC(2)(c) and (d) note that the court must consider cultural needs when determining what is in a child's best interests.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am actually going to now turn to the best interests of the child, which factors in a meaningful relationship with the child's parents. Again, so I can get it on the record in terms of my line of questioning and the amendments that the coalition will be moving, do you agree that it is in best interests of a child to have a meaningful relationship with both parents where it is safe to do so?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHO</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>LM (—) (): Where it's in their best interests.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The parenting provisions in the Family Law Act are meant to establish a framework that leads to decisions being made in the best interests of the child. It follows that one of the most important things the act can then do in relation to parenting is set out the factors that determine what is in the best interests of the child. As of now, the act reads as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The primary considerations are:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child's parents; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.</para></quote>
<para>As we now know, the changes that the Labor government is pursuing and that are in this piece of legislation entirely remove the reference to a meaningful relationship and they only require a consideration of the benefit of being able to have 'a relationship'. Many have submitted—and I would hope that you can see, in terms of my articulation—the problem. What has again been presented by way of feedback after feedback is that a supervised visit with a child for 30 minutes once a month might well be, to quote what the act will say, 'a relationship', but it could certainly be argued that it's not a meaningful relationship. So, again, why did the government remove reference to the benefits of meaningful relationship with children?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The word 'meaningful' was not included in the best-interests factors recommended by the ALRC. The bill does not include this term to avoid potential confusion about its meaning. For example, 'meaningful' could be misinterpreted as referring to being meaningful to the parent rather than the child or to mean more time or non-legally trained users of the act, which would be contrary to the policy intent. Case law has attempted to clarify and define what a meaningful relationship means over time. However, the concern is that ambiguity and confusion remain, particularly for self-interested litigants or parties who try to reach agreements outside of court. Ambiguity and confusion over the word 'meaningful' was highlighted in the 2017 report <inline font-style="italic">A better</inline><inline font-style="italic"> family law system to support and protect those affected by family violence</inline>. Findings from this report included, at 3.12 to 3.16, that stakeholders have indicated 'families are frequently advised not to raise family violence during family law matters' to avoid being seen as an unfriendly parent. In order for children to have a meaningful relationship with both parents, one party is faced with a parenting order that requires contact with the perpetrator—</para>
<para>Progress reported.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY SENATORS</title>
        <page.no>16</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY SENATORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Spinal Cord Injuries</title>
          <page.no>16</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today, approximately 20,800 Australians live with serious spinal cord injuries, often the result of very traumatic accidents. These injuries have a devastating impact on the quality of life and the health of not only these individuals but also their families, and they also take a toll financially. Around a quarter of those affected today are on the NDIS, which costs just under $1 billion per year for those people.</para>
<para>Traditionally, spinal cord injuries were considered a life sentence, with little hope for functional and quality-of-life improvement. Fortunately, today organisations like SpinalCure Australia are making remarkable developments in this field of research. I've had the great privilege of working with and supporting SpinalCure for several years now. Their Project Spark is an innovative research initiative focusing on neurostimulation. This technology has the very real potential to restore meaningful levels of feeling and mobility, which would significantly enhance the quality of life for those with spinal cord injuries and those who love and support them.</para>
<para>It was a great privilege to welcome SpinalCure Australia to Perth last week and to host a number of meetings for them. We also had the opportunity to showcase the groundbreaking work NeuroMoves is doing at Edith Cowan University, in Joondalup, and I was delighted that my friend and colleague Ian Goodenough was able to join us to see what is happening there. We also had a great range of stakeholders who joined us, including Ability WA, The Parent Institute and the Insurance Commission of Western Australia.</para>
<para>Project Spark is now gearing up to establish the next clinical trial site at NeuroMoves, and needs $500,000 for clinical— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Bird Week, Environment</title>
          <page.no>17</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GROGAN</name>
    <name.id>296331</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today is one of the days in National Bird Week. If you've got 20 minutes to spend in your backyard or your favourite place, BirdLife Australia would be delighted to hear a list of the birds you see in your yard. This is a really important and vibrant community science project, so I would challenge anyone to go and spend those 20 minutes finding out what birds are in their favourite place.</para>
<para>It's also a good opportunity for me to give a shout-out to the Adelaide community group of the Australian Conservation Foundation, who came to see me a couple of weeks ago to talk in a not insignificant proportion about birds. They walked me through the birds that are having a hard time in South Australia, those that are at risk and those that are in serious trouble, and some of the work they're doing to address that—again, through some pretty important community science projects.</para>
<para>While we were there, we also spent some time working through the issues that the Adelaide community group of the ACF have with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, and the reforms that the Albanese Labor government are working hard on because we know that the laws we have in this country are broken. I was delighted to spend that time working through what their issues are and what their potential solutions are, and it was great to be able to tell them that while the climate is changing—and it has changed—the Albanese Labor government is taking action. We've legislated emissions reductions. We've doubled the rate of renewable energy approvals. We've put $2 billion into green hydrogen. We've committed to net zero new extinctions and the protection of 30 per cent of Australian land— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired</inline><inline font-style="italic">)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Centrelink</title>
          <page.no>17</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RICE</name>
    <name.id>155410</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On 11 August, Services Australia announced they would be closing the South Melbourne Centrelink office, with no plans to open a new office anywhere in the local area. The timing of this closure is a real slap in the face. It's scheduled for 27 October, which is the second-last day of Anti-Poverty Week.</para>
<para>People who are on Centrelink payments are those most impacted by poverty in this country. In the local area, there are over 56,000 people relying on income support payments, and, in a cost-of-living crisis, access to services like these is absolutely essential.</para>
<para>This closure is going to have a major impact on so many residents in South Melbourne and surrounding areas. By closing this office, Services Australia is making it harder for constituents to access the support they need. The suggestion that people could travel many kilometres to Windsor or simply use digital services shows a lack of understanding of the needs and the capabilities of the people who use this service.</para>
<para>At the end of September, Minister Shorten and local member Josh Burns said that they would try and find a new Centrelink location in the area, yet the community has not received any updates about this. To the member for Macnamara: you have 10 days to avert this crisis. What is your plan? The people who elected you are being punished by your government for simply accessing the support they need.</para>
<para>We've had numerous concerned locals contact us or speak to community groups, expressing huge concern about this. Many rely on this Centrelink office to access their essential services. We call on Minister Shorten and the member for Macnamara for a confirmed alternative location and a clear course of action to ensure that people have access to the social services that they so desperately need.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice</title>
          <page.no>18</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On Saturday just gone, Saturday 14 October, Australians rejected Labor's idea to enshrine a legislated Voice to Parliament in our Constitution. They rejected the proposal because, when they inquired, there was no detail. They rejected the proposal because it would make permanent a body even if that body was unsuccessful. They rejected the proposal because even Indigenous Australians were divided on its merits. People should ask themselves: 'Why did some people in our country trust the Labor Party with constitutional reform, when the last time Labor was able to successfully amend our Constitution was almost 80 years ago in 1946?'</para>
<para>But on the weekend not all was lost. In fact, in the 'no' vote, I sense some very, very strong and positive sentiments in our country. I sense a strong and positive sentiment for reconciliation. I sense a strong and positive sentiment for practical outcomes for disadvantaged Indigenous people. And, most importantly, this country is actually united on the principle of constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians. So, in the 'no' vote, there is indeed a pathway to the future. This parliament mostly stands united on that principle, and I believe the Australian community stands united on the principle of constitutional enshrinement of Indigenous peoples. As I've said in this place before, there is no shame in defeating a bad idea, but only if there is a resolution to soldier on and find a better way—a way born from genuine cooperation and one that will enjoy the widest possible community— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Pregnancy and Infant Loss Awareness Month</title>
          <page.no>18</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator MARIELLE SMITH</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>October is officially recognised as Pregnancy and Infant Loss Awareness Month. This is an important time to come together in recognition of women and their families across our community who have suffered this tragedy, many of whom have suffered it more than once. The loss of a baby is a heartbreaking thing, no matter when it happens, and, whilst we know pregnancy and infant loss is common, the fact is: our responses to families experiencing these tragedies is insufficient because of the lack of available data—the data simply isn't there to guide the right policy responses. Information is power, and we do not have enough information.</para>
<para>When it comes to miscarriage, we can only estimate, but we do estimate that one in four pregnancies will end in miscarriage. If it hasn't affected us in our own lives, I know everyone in this chamber would know a loved one whom it has affected. Around 100,000 pregnancy losses are reported in our country every year, with a miscarriage occurring every five minutes in Australia—every five minutes, a family experiencing that cruel and shattering loss: the loss of a child, the loss of a hope, the loss of a dream. The fact is that, despite this being such a common and tragic experience for so many women and their families across Australia, our policy responses simply haven't kept up and haven't been sufficient to ensure that women are receiving the right care, treatment and support when and where it is needed.</para>
<para>That's why last week in Adelaide I held a roundtable with assistant minister Ged Kearney to hear from clinicians, advocates, support workers and families with lived experience on this issue. We heard about the importance of strong data to support strong action. We heard about how families in our community were feeling unsupported, and particularly their partners and family members feeling excluded from what support was available. And we heard of the variability across sectors, locations, clinicians and support services in both the availability, quality and appropriateness of care. There are many courageous families telling their stories. We've heard you, and I look forward to this work continuing in government.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Royal Commission Into Defence And Veteran Suicide</title>
          <page.no>18</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I did an interview last week with an ABC journalist who wanted to know if I was shocked that Defence wasn't handing over documents and reports to the royal commission into veteran suicide. I wish I was shocked. Because it is absolutely disgusting. But this is the way Defence and the Chief of the Defence Force operate, with no repercussions. They're not interested in doing the right by diggers. All they care about is marking their own homework.</para>
<para>The fact that a commissioner, Commissioner Kaldas, had to come out publicly in the middle of a royal commission to ask them to hand over documents is absolutely appalling in itself. The Commissioner Kaldas at the National Press Club last month told Australians that Defence and the DVA were stonewalling the royal commission, moving at a snail's pace, when the veteran suicide rate is a national crisis. Veterans, mothers and many of us fought for years for this royal commission. This can't just be another inquiry that gets ignored and its recommendations are swept under the carpet. I congratulate the Commissioner Kaldas for having the integrity to call out 'deep-rooted culture and systemwide issues within the Department of Veterans' Affairs.'</para>
<para>Veterans are taking their lives in record numbers. My office is getting calls from veterans desperate to have their claims processed. As Commissioner Kaldas has said: 'When it comes to protecting the health and wellbeing of servicemen and women, the evidence that this royal commission has uncovered date suggests there has been far too much talk and not enough action.'</para>
<para>When the deadline for public submissions to the royal commission closed last Friday, a total of 6,000 submissions had been received. Good on you for having the courage to come forward and give it. If that doesn't show you that they've have had a gutful of the Chief of the Defence Force and the way that senior command is running our Defence Force and our national security, I think that says it all. Honestly, there is time for you to come forward and give all those documents that have been requested, CDF. Start showing some bloody courage. Start showing some leadership, mate. Quite frankly, your time is up and it is time for the Minister of Defence to get into you and actually give you a choice: pass the documents over or bloody leave. Leave today.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator, your time has expired. I will remind the chamber that some of the language used was unparliamentary. I appreciate your passion, but we have to maintain respectful dignity in this chamber.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Israel</title>
          <page.no>19</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUGHES</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As this government stood together as one, decrying the atrocities conducted by the terrorists known as Hamas, as we took a stand in solidarity with Israel, a nation we have a long history with, an internationally recognised sovereign state, we have the Greens and Adam Bandt quick to jump in and attack Israel and its decision to defend itself from its enemies. But lo and behold, Kylea Tink, the member for North Sydney, and Dr Sophie Scamps, the member for Mackellar, nestle in behind their Green comrades—because teal, as we know, is just another shade of green. These are the sanctimonious hypocrites who sold disenfranchised Libs a lie. These are the morally superior among us that voted yes and are enlightened, unlike the rest of us, yet in their virtue they chose to defend barbarous terrorism perpetrated on an ethnic group because it somehow seems justified in lieu of other tensions between Israel and Palestine.</para>
<para>I am not sure how the 1,500 Jewish people in the electorate of North Sydney feel about their member's position. But these independents, just remember, your actions speak louder than words. They say the right things: 'We deplore Hamas but we want to deaths of innocents on both sides to stop.' But the teals and the Greens oppose the government's motion to condemn the Hamas attacks on Israel. What does that say? It is simply an untenable position. We hear about pre-emptive strikes from other enemies on Israel. Iran just wants the liberation of Palestine, does it? Is Hezbollah just helping the poor Palestinians? You cannot take a position like this in the middle of an assault on Israel's very existence without implying your desire to see the nation state cease. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Israel</title>
          <page.no>19</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PAYMAN</name>
    <name.id>300707</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The killing of innocent civilians in Israel should be condemned and we condemn it. The killing of innocent civilians in Palestine should also be condemned and we must condemn it. The international community loudly and proudly condemned Russia's occupation of Ukraine when it started attacking Ukraine in 2014 yet today the world watches as the state of Israel deprives the entire population—men, women and children—of the basic necessities of life: food, water, electricity, gas and medicines. We must condemn it.</para>
<para>Israeli missiles strike residential dwellings, civilians, multistorey apartments, health facilities as well as places of worship, indiscriminately killing men, women and children. We must condemn it. Human Rights Watch confirms that Israel is using white phosphorous in Gaza. That violates the international humanitarian law prohibition. We must condemn it.</para>
<para>The price tag of Israel's right to defend itself cannot be the destruction of Palestine. Israel's right to defend its civilians cannot equate to the annihilation of Palestinian civilians. I hereby call for an immediate ceasefire to come into effect, alongside many world leaders and experts. Food, water, medicine and humanitarian aid need to be allowed to get through and reach the victims. Mediation and talks need to start, as obviously violence has not solved anything for the past 75 years, and a just and long-lasting solution needs to be sorted out.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Harmsen, Dr Collette Joan</title>
          <page.no>19</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last weekend I joined Bob Brown and many other supporters to give Dr Colette Harmsen a hero's welcome out of prison. Collette was sentenced to three months imprisonment for her part in peaceful protests to defend nature from the ravages of logging and mining. This was the first time in over a decade that an environmental activist had been sentenced to jail time in Tasmania. When she was released, Dr Harmsen said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I'm not doing this to be remembered; I am doing this to remind people to act now for nature, for our wildlife, for our forests—and as a reminder to act now for our whole flipping planet.</para></quote>
<para>Dr Harmsen also said courageously that she would continue to peacefully protest and risk her freedom for her beliefs. I want to give a massive shout out today to all the activists, right around this country and right around the world, who are taking massive personal risks by protesting peacefully, not for themselves but for future generations of humanity and for the health of this planet's climate and its ecosystems.</para>
<para>Our climate is literally breaking down around us. The ecosystems that we rely on for our survival as a species are collapsing. It's people like Colette and those like her who recognise the urgency of the crisis that we are living in and have the courage to act. Dr Harmsen and people like her should be celebrated, not incarcerated, and governments will soon find out they can't arrest their way out of a climate crisis—the prisons aren't big enough.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Armstrong, Mr Lance John Edward</title>
          <page.no>20</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>WHISH-WILSON () (): Lance Armstrong passed away peacefully in his sleep in a Melbourne nursing home on 14 October 2023. He was 83 years of age. He was born in Perth Western Australia on 17 February 1940. Originally a uniting church minister and social activist in Launceston, on the back of community opposition to the Wesley Vale pulp mill, Lance was elected to the Tasmanian House of Assembly in 1989 as the first Greens member for Bass, with Christine Milne and Di Hollister to join Bob Brown and Gerry Bates. This motley group of independents formed an alliance to become the Green Independents, setting an important trend for us in this place to follow.</para>
<para>The Green Independents held the balance of government for three years under what was then termed the Labor-Green Accord. Lance was a rock-solid Green, working to protect forests, supporting gay law reform, returning of land to the Aboriginal community and opposing poker machines. In 1991 he was responsible for the first-ever Greens legislation to pass an Australian parliament, with a bill to ensure the voting rights of young Tasmanians. Armstrong represented the Greens at the Tahiti protests against French nuclear bomb testing in the Pacific Ocean. He also introduced legislation to prohibit nuclear war ships from Tasmanian ports and to decriminalise the personal use of marijuana. After 1992, the MPs kept their seats and reconstituted as the Tasmanian Greens. Lance would continue on as an MP until 1996.</para>
<para>He wrote a book on his seven years in parliament called <inline font-style="italic">Good God</inline><inline font-style="italic"> he's a Green</inline> and related how, as a minister of the Christian church, he came to identify so closely with the Green movement. Lance returned to Uniting Church ministry, taking an appointment in Albury in 1996 before retiring with Ruth to Melbourne to be near his family. Lance is survived by his wife, Ruth; three children, Kim, Tracey and Victor; four grandchildren; and two great-grandchildren. Vale, Lance.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Sri Lanka Day Multicultural Food and Cultural Festival</title>
          <page.no>20</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I must say what a terrific title for a book! That's pretty terrific. I rise to tell a good news story, and that is in relation to the Sri Lanka Day Multicultural Food and Cultural Festival 2023 celebrations held in Brisbane. I want to congratulate all of those involved in a very successful event. I congratulate the president of the Federation of Sri Lankan Organisations of Queensland, Dr Jay Weerawardena, and his team for such a successful occasion. It was a celebration of Sri Lankan culture. It was a celebration of the contribution which is made by our wonderful Sri Lanka diaspora here in Australia, over 130,000 strong. And overall it was a celebration of the deep link and bond between Sri Lanka and Australia, between the peoples of Sri Lanka and Australia.</para>
<para>Those in the chamber may not be aware that, going all the way back to World War I, there was a contribution made by the people of Sri Lanka to the Anzac landing at Gallipoli. As the fleet left Australia to go to the Middle East, ultimately landing at Gallipoli, they stopped in Colombo in then Ceylon and picked up the Ceylon Planters' Rifle Corps. Members of that corps were actually with the I Anzac Corps when they hit the beaches at Gallipoli on Anzac Day. That bond between Australia and Sri Lanka continues to this day, and the people who attended this event over the weekend are the human bridge between Australia and Sri Lanka. I thank each and every one of them for the contribution they make to our beautiful country.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Constitution</title>
          <page.no>20</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Whatever may be said about the Voice to Parliament referendum, one thing is clear: the 'no' campaign may have won, but the real winners were equality and Australian democracy. This referendum showed the world that it's not governments, corporations or activists who hold power in this nation. It's the Australian people.</para>
<para>On the weekend, we voted overwhelmingly in favour of equal citizenship and against racial inequality. It was most definitely not a rejection of Indigenous Australians. It was a rejection of racial separatism, racial exceptionalism, constitutional activism and grievance and identity politics. Australians have decided these have no place in our Constitution.</para>
<para>One Nation led the way on this most important national decision. We were the first party to declare for the 'no' vote on principle. We were advocating against the Voice from the beginning and we made telling contributions to the debate. However, the best promoters of the 'no' vote ended up being the leaders of the 'yes' campaign: Marcia Langton, Noel Pearson, Megan Davis, Thomas Mayo, Linda Burney and our Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese. Their statements—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will remind you, Senator, to use the correct title of people from the other place. It's Minister Burney.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Their statements over the years probably did more than anything else to kill support for the Voice, and they called it misinformation. So what next?</para>
<para>This referendum has been a wake-up call for many Australians. They want answers about why the gaps haven't closed despite the tens of billions of dollars spent on this every year. For many years I've been calling for a comprehensive audit of the Aboriginal industry that has failed Indigenous people. This is absolutely essential so that Australians get the answers they deserve. Nothing will ever change unless we treat everyone on an individual needs basis and not on the basis of guilt or race. We are all Australians. Treat people equally on a needs basis.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Nuclear Weapons</title>
          <page.no>21</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEELE-JOHN</name>
    <name.id>250156</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The fifteenth of October marked 70 years since the first mainland nuclear testing conducted in Australia. Emu Field in South Australia was the site of Operation Totem, a pair of nuclear tests conducted by the British government. Totem 1 was detonated on 15 October, followed by Totem 2 on the 27th. The radioactive fallout, dubbed 'black mist', unleashed horror and death and environmental effects that persist to this day. This testing was done with no consultation with or care for First Nations people living on the land and with no acknowledgement that their communities have had to endure the effects that have come from the radioactive fallout.</para>
<para>Earlier this year, I met with survivors of Australia's nuclear testing and with their family members. Their stories were powerful and their ask simple and clear: it is time for Australia to sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Articles 6 and 7 of the treaty provide for victim assistance and environmental remediation and repair in relation to nuclear weapons use and testing. There is no place in society for nuclear weapons. There can be no acceptance of nuclear weapons in a modern society.</para>
<para>The ALP government came to power with a promise to sign the TPNW. It is right there in their policy platform. But here we are now, 18 months into the Albanese government's life, and there is nothing to show for it. The Greens are calling on the government to commit to signing and ratifying the TPNW in this term of government without dither or delay. Nuclear weapons have no place in a modern society.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Israel</title>
          <page.no>21</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator VAN</name>
    <name.id>283601</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise again to continue my remarks from yesterday condemning the heinous attacks on Israelis by Hamas. Make no mistake: we saw last Saturday some of the most heinous crimes conducted against innocent people. That's innocent men, women and children, but the crimes against the women and children are, I think, the most utterly heinous the world has ever seen since the acts of ISIS. Don't forget that Hamas as an organisation is guided by Tehran—by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and the heinous regime in Tehran. We see every day on the streets of Tehran these same acts of aggression against women and children. It's the IRGC that trains Hamas. It's the IRGC that kills women like Mahsa Amini. So, while I stand for Israel, I also stand for the women in Tehran. I will continue to be the voice of the women in Tehran, and I will continue to be a voice for Israel.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Road Vehicle Standards</title>
          <page.no>21</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CAROL BROWN</name>
    <name.id>F49</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's take 2 on my endeavours to let the Senate know about the wonderful announcement I made a few weeks ago at the Kenworth truck yard in Bayswater.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Sterle</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What a great place to do it!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CAROL BROWN</name>
    <name.id>F49</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Exactly, Senator Sterle. The Safer Freight Vehicle package facilitates the supply of safer trucks in Australia, which will help reduce road trauma while also increasing freight productivity. The safer freight vehicles package includes an increase to the overall width limit from 2.50 metres to 2.55 metres for new trucks that are fitted with a number of safety features. These safety features include devices to reduce blind spots, electronic stability control, advances to emergency braking, lane departure warning systems—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The time for two-minute statements has expired.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>22</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>First Nations Australians</title>
          <page.no>22</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE</name>
    <name.id>263528</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question today is to the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator Gallagher. Minister, more than $4 billion goes to the National Indigenous Australians Agency. Can you give us a real, practical example of a policy that your government has initiated through the NIAA that is improving the lives of our most marginalised Indigenous Australians?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Nampijinpa Price for the question. I just want to acknowledge the coverage I saw in the paper this morning about the vandalism attacks on your family and just acknowledge that that is completely unacceptable. I just wanted to register that. It is not nice to see. It is not Australian to see things like that happening.</para>
<para>In relation to the question, the NIAA, as Senator Nampijinpa Price knows, runs a range of programs, including through the Indigenous Advancement Strategy. There are a range of programs across health, education, community services, family support services that that agency runs. In addition to that, there are a range of programs that we are currently consulting with First Nations communities around. Those are some of the packages that we announced earlier through the October budget and the budget that we have just had around making sure that we are putting in place new programs that have the support of the local community. I am happy to provide a list of those programs to Senator Nampijinpa Price.</para>
<para>I accept there are significant amounts of public dollars going into this part of government service delivery. It's always important to know and expect that we are getting good value for those public funds, which is why I think some of the outcomes of the audit into that agency by ANAO are important to implement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Nampijinpa Price, a first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE</name>
    <name.id>263528</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, the Australian National Audit Office said that the Northern Land Council is not fully implementing its fraud and corruption policy and the Central Land Council's fraud control arrangements fall short of the minimum requirements. How can the government reassure the Australian taxpayer that their hard-earned dollars are not being wasted or misused rather than improving the lives of our most marginalised Indigenous Australians?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank you for the question. I think one thing that was very clear from the discussion and debate that we had in the lead-up to the referendum was that Australians want to ensure there is a better future and to drive better outcomes across First Nations communities, and that is a key priority for this government. The NIAA has accepted all seven recommendations from the Audit Office report. It covered a period of time. I think it was from 2020 to 2021. The recommendations about ensuring that there is a focus on compliance and fraud prevention were fully accepted by NIAA. I have no doubt that they are doing that, and I would expect that they would be ready and available to discuss this at estimates when they appear next week. It is important, and that is why we have audits. That is why we have the Audit Office doing that work and highlighting those deficiencies where they exist.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Nampijinpa Price, a second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE</name>
    <name.id>263528</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, on 4 October you wrote in the <inline font-style="italic">Financial Review</inline> that the current approach simply is not delivering value for money. Given you refused to commit to an audit of spending on Indigenous programs to ensure that taxpayer money is being spent appropriately and getting to communities that need it most, can you guarantee that every taxpayer dollar is being used as efficiently as possible?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Nampijinpa Price for the question. The point I was making in that opinion piece is that whilst we are making appropriate investments, as each government has and as governments of all political persuasions have, we aren't seeing the improvement in outcomes. That's the point I was making. We had been arguing that the Voice was a mechanism to change that—that the status quo wasn't working and that by listening and working and taking advice from First Nations people through a Voice, we would be able to improve on those outcomes, through the process the Voice would allow. As the referendum has been held, we respect the outcome of that referendum. We will continue to listen and to work on that, and we'll use the Central Australian strategy and the work that Minister Burney is doing through that as a model of how to ensure that we are getting better outcomes for the money that's being invested in First Nations communities.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Employment</title>
          <page.no>23</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHITE</name>
    <name.id>IWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is for the Minister for Finance and the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Last month the Albanese Labor government delivered on its commitment to release the employment white paper <inline font-style="italic">Working future</inline>, outlining a roadmap to ensure more Australians who want jobs or more hours of work can get them. What key challenges did the paper identify, and what opportunities are ahead for individual Australians and the broader economy?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator White for the question and for highlighting the importance of the employment white paper which the government released in late September. The employment white paper outlines our vision for a strong and inclusive labour market, one where everyone has the opportunity for secure, fairly paid work and where people, businesses and communities can be the beneficiaries of that. The white paper is about five things: delivering sustained and inclusive full employment; promoting job security and strong, sustainable wage growth; reigniting productivity growth; filling skills needs and building our future workforce; and overcoming barriers to employment and broadening opportunity. The white paper provides the roadmap to make sure that our labour market is in the best shape possible for the future.</para>
<para>We do face some challenges in the economy, including an aging population, rising demand for care and support services, technological and digital transformation, the climate change and net zero transformation that's occurring across our economy, and geopolitical risk and fragmentation. We have a plan to harness the opportunities for Australian workers. These include the areas that I've just outlined, like jobs in the net zero economy and jobs in the care economy, and reducing barriers to work for people from more diverse backgrounds, allowing greater participation for women in the economy, expanding our skills base, reforming the migration system and broadening access to foundational skills. These are all really important areas for us to focus on as we work together to ensure that everybody who wants a job across the economy can get that job and, more importantly, that they're given the skills and opportunities in the lead-up to that to be prepared for the jobs of the future.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator White, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHITE</name>
    <name.id>IWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>National Cabinet met yesterday and endorsed the new National Skills Agreement, which reflects much of the thinking in the employment white paper. How will the agreement expand and transform access to the VET sector, support quality training and implement reforms to address critical skills shortages? How will the government's fee-free TAFE measure help industry while also helping Australians with the cost of living?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator White for the supplementary. That's right: last night the Prime Minister and Minister for Skills and Training announced the landmark National Skills Agreement. This is evidence of a government and a Prime Minister that want to work with others to get results, instead of the wrecking and negativity that we've seen from those opposite.</para>
<para>The skills agreement will support a new way of the states and territories and the Commonwealth working together. The new agreement will see the Australian government invest up to an additional $3.7 billion in VET over five years, bringing total Commonwealth investment through the agreement to $12.6 billion. First ministers noted that the National Skills Agreement delivers on the vision and principles previously endorsed by National Cabinet. First ministers also recommitted to fee-free TAFE. This has been an incredibly popular government initiative, with almost 215,000 places delivered in the first six months of this year, far exceeding expectations. Remember TAFE? <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator White, a second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHITE</name>
    <name.id>IWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The employment white paper outlines where some of the big changes in our economy will be in future decades and helps to guide how we can be prepared to harness the opportunities that come with them. This includes opportunities for women in the Australian economy. What are the opportunities for Australian women, and how will they help grow and strengthen our national economy?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>One of the most fundamental changes in the Australian labour market over the past 50 years is the rise in female workplace participation, and we want to continue this trend. About 62.5 per cent of women participated in the labour market in August 2023 compared to 37 per cent in 1966. But we do have a highly gender-segregated labour market, and gender segregation is a major barrier to addressing skills shortages in critical occupations such as aged care, early childhood education and care, teaching and technicians and trade workers. We know that women dominate in sectors that pay less and are less secure, and male dominated sectors have less flexibility or access to paid parental leave. So these are both areas that we need to concentrate on to make sure that we can maximise the use of our labour market to deliver in those areas of skills shortage but also to make sure that we're using fully the skills across the economy.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>24</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LIDDLE</name>
    <name.id>300644</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Minister, you and your colleagues continue to justify Mr Albanese's disastrous and divisive referendum by saying it was about honouring a promise. Since the latest CPI figures show the cost of food and non-alcoholic beverages has increased 7.5 per cent year on year. Instead of dividing Australia with his disastrous referendum, could the Prime Minister also keep his promise that a Labor government will lower the cost of living?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Liddle for the question. It relates to cost of living, which is an incredibly important issue for the government and one that we have remained focused on since we came into government.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cash</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Really? What about the $275?</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If I just block out some of those interjections, I will get to it. As I said yesterday, we have provided a very significant cost-of-living package through the October budget and through the May budget to address those pressures where we can without adding to inflation. Every single step along the way, as we've been designing those programs and implementing them through legislation, those opposite have opposed them. It's one thing to stand up and ask questions about what you're doing in the same breath as you're opposing the steps that we're taking to reduce those pressures on families and households across Australia. It's hypocritical, I would argue, to, on the one hand, rail against it and, in the same breath, use your vote—every single one of your votes—and sit on the other side to block legislation that would introduce measures that support households with those cost-of-living pressures. We are totally focused on cost of living. Since day one of this government—</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, have a look. Go back and have a look. Have a look at the October budget. Have a look at the energy bill relief. Have a look at the cheaper child care. Have a look at the fee-free TAFE. Have a look at cheaper medicines. And where were you then? Absolutely nowhere.</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order on my left! Did you have anything further to add, Minister? Order! Order on my left!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I know it hurts when people call you out for the double standards and for your hypocrisy, but that is what we are seeing here. To call it out, to pretend you're concerned, but then to actually block and stand in the way of those measures being introduced—that's exactly what you did. Where were you on cheaper medicines? Where were you?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Liddle, a first supplementary? Senator Wong and Senator Henderson! I have a senator on her feet waiting to ask a question.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LIDDLE</name>
    <name.id>300644</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, instead of a divisive and expensive referendum to keep his word, when will the Prime Minister keep his word and deliver a $275 cut to power bills, as promised 97 times, instead of the 20 per cent increase announced by the Australian Energy Regulator in May 2023?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, for the first time in a long time we do have a Prime Minister that keeps his word. We do have a Prime Minister that keeps his word, that actually sticks by his convictions, by the commitments that he gives. We know that's a strange concept to those opposite, who fly by the wind of a 24/7 media cycle and change their positions as much as they probably change their underwear, I would imagine. So I accept that it is a foreign concept to you. But, on energy bill relief, on implementing the Powering Australia plan, we are doing exactly what we said we would when we promised before the election. And where were those opposite when we sought to pass legislation that allowed billions of dollars to flow on people's energy bills, on their winter bills? Where were you then? You opposed it. We don't forget that, and we'll be making sure everybody else knows about it.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister. Senator Liddle, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LIDDLE</name>
    <name.id>300644</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, we've just had the expensive and divisive referendum so the Prime Minister could keep his word. When will the Prime Minister keep his promise to get real wages moving, considering—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Watt</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You are kidding!</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Liddle, please resume your seat. Order across the chamber! Senator McKenzie, order! And Senator Green! Senator Liddle, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LIDDLE</name>
    <name.id>300644</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Where would you like me to continue from—the beginning?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You'd got to 'real wages', and then the noise started.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LIDDLE</name>
    <name.id>300644</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>When will the Prime Minister keep his promise to get real wages moving, considering under his watch real wages have fallen by more than 2.3 per cent?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Watt and Senator Birmingham! Order! Neither of you have the call. I'm about to give the call to the minister. I would like there to be silence in the chamber. Minister Gallagher.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Liddle for the question. I feel that whoever wrote that didn't really have your best interests at heart, Senator Liddle, when they put that together, when the coalition spend a decade keeping wages down. That is what you did—to ensure that working people never, ever got ahead.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Order! Minister, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You had a whole section in your minimum wage case submission that had the headline 'The importance of low wages'. That is your record—wages stagnating. You never, ever supported a minimum wage increase. What did you do on aged care? What did you do?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALL</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Sorry, Senator Hughes, I can't hear you, because you did nothing. You did nothing.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Hughes, I have called—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hughes, for the third time! I've called you twice. I called the chamber to order, and you were yelling across the chamber.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Don't answer back. I'm calling for order, and it is disrespectful to continue to call out after I have called for order. Minister, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Wages are growing for the first time in a decade, because you have a government that supports working people getting wage increases, that supports minimum wage increases, that supports aged-care workers getting an increase. That is why we are seeing those wages move for the first time in a decade. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Pensions and Benefits</title>
          <page.no>25</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RICE</name>
    <name.id>155410</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister Watt. This week is Anti-Poverty Week, a week to raise awareness and take action to eradicate poverty. Right now, there are millions of people on income support living below the poverty line who are forced to complete mutual obligations or risk losing their income. Recently the <inline font-style="italic">Guardian </inline>reported that a taxpayer-funded course run by WISE Employment, one of Australia's biggest employment service providers, gives jobseekers instructions on how to shower properly and asks them in a questionnaire if the reason they are unemployed is that they are 'overweight' or 'lazy'. Minister, do you think it's acceptable that people surviving on less than $54 a day are forced to fulfil these degrading and pointless activities or risk their payments being suspended?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm obviously not aware of the details of that particular example that you've cited, but, as you are aware, Minister Burke has expressed concern about the program which you're referring to that provides funding through those sorts of agencies. I know you're aware there is an inquiry underway into that agency—not being the minister directly, I think it's Workforce Australia—and the work that that agency does. But of course we believe that everyone in Australia should be treated with respect, whether they be someone in work or someone seeking work. I would be concerned about anything that a particular agency may be doing that doesn't treat people with that level of respect.</para>
<para>More broadly, the issue of poverty is again something that the Albanese government is not just concerned about but is taking action to seek to address. We provided, in the most recent budget, an increase in Commonwealth rent assistance, which I think was the first time in an extremely long time that any Australian government had provided increased rent assistance. Senator Gallagher talked about the action that this government has taken to lift wages, which of course doesn't directly apply to those out of work but certainly for low income Australians those increases in wages have provided some relief. In addition, we've provided additional relief for energy prices. We've provided a massive investment in social housing, which of course is predominantly used by those on low incomes. So there are a range of ways in which the Albanese government is taking action to assist those most disadvantaged within our community, and I look forward, and I am sure Minister Burke looks forward, to seeing the recommendations of the inquiry about how we can make changes to Workforce Australia so that it does fulfil the objectives that it was originally designed for.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Rice, a first supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RICE</name>
    <name.id>155410</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>WISE Employment is among dozens of privatised job agencies contracted by the federal government to run the $500 million Employability Skills Training to allegedly help jobseekers become job ready by providing intensive pre-employment training. Minister, how can the governments justify spending half a billion of taxpayers' dollars on these useless and discriminatory courses yet refuse to raise the rate of JobSeeker to above the poverty line?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>To start with, Senator Rice, I would again point out that, in its most recent budget, the Albanese government did increase working-age payments for things like JobSeeker, Austudy and youth allowance by $40 per fortnight. That was something that was necessary, especially to assist people who are out of work and students with cost-of living challenges. And, as I've said, in addition, we've provided increased rent assistance and all of the other things that I was talking about.</para>
<para>As you know, Senator Rice, some of the challenges that we face in terms of Workforce Australia, and the programs and agencies that are funded through it, is that the former government entered into billions of dollars of contracts with these private sector agencies on the eve of the last election, and that is something that can't be undone overnight. But we are undertaking that inquiry, led by the member for Bruce, Julian Hill, and we look forward to recommendations being received so that we can take action.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Rice, a second supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RICE</name>
    <name.id>155410</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Over the past year we've heard evidence from unemployed advocates, income support recipients and employment providers that mutual obligations are punitive and counterproductive. In fact, WISE Employment, itself, said in its submission to the Workforce Australia inquiry that removing these measures from the system would improve engagement from jobseekers. Minister, I know you said it can't be done overnight, but, given this mounting evidence that mutual obligations hinder rather than help people on income support, what is the rationale for maintaining this harmful system?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I recall discussing or debating this issue at a previous Senate estimates hearing. The Albanese government does support the concept of mutual obligation. However, we do not support it being undertaken in the punitive manner that the system has built into it after 10 years of coalition government. We do think that it is right that those in receipt of public support, public benefits, that there is some obligation on them to seek employment and to undertake the issues that are needed to seek employment, but we don't think that it should be punitive in the way that the system is currently structured, and that's exactly one of the issues that's being considered by that inquiry being led by the member for Bruce, Julian Hill. So we probably disagree on that matter, but the fundamental point is that we don't think that Australians should be treated in a punitive way. They shouldn't be treated in a degrading way, whether they be in work or out of work.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Vocational Education And Training</title>
          <page.no>26</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Skills and Training, Senator Watt. After the May 2022 election, not only was it clear that the Albanese government inherited $1 trillion of Liberal and National debt, but we inherited a massive skills deficit holding our economy back. How is the Albanese government continuing to prioritise skills and training for Australians, and how will today's landmark five-year National Skills Agreement embed national cooperation and strategic investment in our vocational education and training sector? What can we teach those opposite?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you very much, Senator Sheldon, for the question. You are absolutely right. The $1 trillion of debt was not the only thing we inherited from the Liberal and National parties. We were also bequeathed a massive skills deficit. You can see very clearly where the coalition feels sensitive and vulnerable, because they always pipe up. They wake from their slumber when they're reminded of the trillion dollars of debt that we inherited, that they left behind. They always wake up from their slumber when we point out that they kept wages deliberately low for a decade that they were in power. They're all the things that they're embarrassed about that, and we are never going to let the Australian public forget about it.</para>
<para>We're also not going to let the Australian public forget that we were also bequeathed a massive skills deficit by the former coalition government. According to the OECD—and I suspect the former Senate leader Mathias Cormann knows about this now that he is the Secretary-General of the OECD—as of July 2022 Australia was experiencing the second most severe labour shortage in the developed world. Mathias must have been shaking his head when his own organisation had to put that report out, saying that Australia had the second most severe labour shortage in the developed world. That's why the Albanese government took urgent action on being elected, starting by bringing together Australians, unions, employers and civil society at the jobs and skills summit; establishing Jobs and Skills Australia to underpin our response to current and emerging workforce needs; funding 180,000 fee-free TAFE places in 2023—I can't hear you, Senator Birmingham; have you got something to say there? I didn't hear that.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Watt!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And of course we have already passed 214,000 enrolments. And we have created new energy apprenticeships to get more workers into the clean energy sector. Today we've taken the next step, with the Albanese government announcing an historic agreement with every state and territory to boost investment in the Australian VET sector over the next five years. We're prepared to invest $12.6 billion, including an additional $3.7 billion, to expand and transform access to the VET sector and give Australia the skills it needs.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Sheldon, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We know access to education and training for students and workers to reskill or upskill in areas of demand can be life-changing. It also increases the likelihood of a good, secure job with career progression. How does today's announcement complement the cost-of-living relief measures already being implemented by the government?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Watt, I do remind you to make your comments to the chair.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you for the question, Senator Sheldon. The five-year National Skills Agreement announced today by the Prime Minister and Mr O'Connor, the Minister for Skills and Training, furthers our goal of putting TAFE at the heart of the VET sector. We are moving away from the decade of coalition rule where they stripped funding away from TAFEs. We're putting TAFE back at the heart of the VET system in this country. From 2024, the Albanese government will deliver a further 300,000 fee-free TAFE places nationally. In 2023 already over 214,000 Australians have enrolled in fee-free TAFE, smashing our target of 180,000 places six months earlier than anticipated and nearly 35,000 places more than expected. Importantly, these enrolments are in areas of high priority in terms of skills needs. Our fee-free TAFE policy is giving opportunities for Australians to get good, secure jobs and removing cost barriers to skills and training.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Sheldon, a second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, the TAFE sector has endured periods of underfunding, impacts of deregulation, loose rules of VET market entry, a lack of national cohesion and obsession with competition at the expense of collaboration. What lessons have we learnt from the past and what has been the response to our skills policies, including those providing important cost-of-living relief?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Sheldon. The main lesson we have learnt from the past is that, if you want a well-funded training system in this country that meets the country's skill needs, you cannot have a coalition government. We saw the legacy of those 10 years of underfunding and decay in the form of massive skill shortages and holding Australians back. The national skills agreement, which has now been signed, means that the Albanese government and the states and territories can work together in a coordinated way. What a novel concept—cooperation and working together with the states and territories! We saw under the coalition that if you don't collaborate and coordinate with the states and territories, who are responsible for huge amounts of investment in their own TAFE sectors, then it's impossible to get the best outcomes for Australians, businesses and the economy, and poor old Mathias Cormann has to put out a report saying that Australia is experiencing the second-most-severe labour shortage in the developed world.</para>
<para>It's the first time in 10 years that every state and territory has been supported by the Commonwealth in a genuine and collaborative way. We're getting on with delivering funding to deliver the skills Australians need. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Institute of Sport</title>
          <page.no>28</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Senator Gallagher. Will the government immediately rule out relocating the Australian Institute of Sport away from the ACT after more than four decades in Canberra?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator David Pocock for the question and for his interest in the AIS. As I think Senator Pocock knows, we have a review underway—it was announced on the weekend—to look at the AIS and whether it's fit for purpose and to understand the best approach to high performance as we move towards the Brisbane 2032 Games. As Senator Pocock understands, one of issues that will be looked at, which is in the terms of reference, is the location of the AIS. That is one of the issues the review is looking at.</para>
<para>The review is due to report to government by the end of this year, so it is a relatively quick review. But, because there is a review underway, I am not in a position to rule in or rule out anything or the government's position prior to that review reporting. The focus of the government is to ensure that we have the best facilities and that we have the best arrangements in place to deliver what athletes need in the lead-up to those important games. This is work that has to be done. I think everyone who has been to the AIS acknowledges that it has been neglected in terms of infrastructure and support. It's another area that we have inherited. We are working through how to address it.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, you had a decade. I understand, Senator Canavan, there were repeated requests for investments in the AIS that were ignored when you were in government. That is the reality of it.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLA</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Interject all you like. Everyone who has bothered to go out there and have a look might realise that it hasn't received the investment that it has needed to remain the premier facility that we need for athletes in the future. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator David Pocock, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister. How can the government in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis justify exploring the relocation and spending $1 billion when a fraction of that will get the current facility up to world-class standards?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We have to do a range of things. Governments have to do a number of things. One of them—I think quite reasonably—as we're looking at the investments we need to make in the lead-up to the Brisbane Games in particular is to look at what the optimal settings are for those investments. That is exactly why we're having the review.</para>
<para>I haven't seen a comparison of relocating and investment in the current location. I have not seen that work. If it has been done, I haven't seen it. That is precisely why we are having this review, which is looking at a range of areas—not only location. It's all about how best we support athletes and provide them with the facilities and investment they need so that they can do what we want them to do, which is to win gold at these events and perform to their highest standard. The review is being done to provide advice to government in a timely way.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister. Senator Pocock, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister. Why is the government spending taxpayer money on another review when we have the Australian Sports Commission, who are independent and expert, and they've already said that it's more cost-effective and less disruptive for athletes for the AIS to remain in Canberra?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I understand that the ASC had done a master plan of the site and had costed that, for the former government, and it had gone to the government by way of budget submission and had not been supported. I understand that work had been done. I wasn't aware that a broader review, as is outlined in the review that we are having Ms Flaherty and Ms Smith perform, has been undertaken. I think let's do it. It's a good thing to do. It's going to report within a matter of months. It will provide advice to government, and then we can work a way forward and address some of the deficiencies that those opposite have left us with, such as an AIS that has lacked the investment it's needed to put ourselves, our athletes and our national teams in the position that they need to be in for the upcoming games.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Defence Procurement</title>
          <page.no>29</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator VAN</name>
    <name.id>283601</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, Minister Wong. My question is regarding Land 400 Phase 3 bravo. I think congratulations are deserved on choosing Hanwha's Redback infantry fighting vehicle, or IFV. The Army has been calling for this capability for decades. Can the minister outline the key reasons this IFV was chosen to protect our men and women in a fight?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks to Senator Van. I know he has a great interest in defence procurement, and I also know that the Land 400 project has been one of the projects of great interest to quite a number of members of parliament and senators. Obviously the focus that the government has had has been on capability. As you would know, Senator Van, the government announced, on 27 July, Hanwha Defense Australia as the preferred tenderer to deliver 129 infantry fighting vehicles. The Redback will be a significant upgrade to the M113, the current vehicle used by Army to protect soldiers. The Redback infantry fighting vehicle will come with latest-generation armour, cannon and missiles, providing protection, mobility and firepower that is needed by our soldiers when in close combat. This is a capability that the government believes is needed for the ADF in its work.</para>
<para>Under the government, we have also accelerated the delivery schedule of the project to provide certainty to both Army and the defence industrial base following the Defence Strategic Review. We are looking to have these vehicles delivered two years earlier than they would have been under the former government's plan. I also note this was a project on which the former government did not make a procurement decision during the life of the government. I can provide more detail or a briefing about the capability of the Redback, but the advice to government was clearly that it came with superior capability, particularly protection, mobility and firepower, and that was necessary, obviously as a capability, and it was the best available provider.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Van, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator VAN</name>
    <name.id>283601</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The former government lacked the ticker before the last election to announce the winner, thereby locking in the full complement of 450 that was originally tendered. Given the government has only ordered 129, just 70 per cent of the original 450, will the government review this cut capability?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think there are two points. The first is, obviously—as I alluded to in my primary answer—that there was competition for this tender, and there was interest from both members and senators and more broadly. I understand that. This happens, but obviously we took the view that, whatever the different views from different tenderers and the different locations in Australia that had a particular interest in this, what was more important was the best decision on capability, and that is the way in which the government approached this decision.</para>
<para>In relation to the numbers, I don't agree with the simple assertion that this is a cut to capability. You will know, Senator Van, that we have had a defence strategic review. That review looked to what is the appropriate shape of the Australian Defence Force, what is the capability we need— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Van, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator VAN</name>
    <name.id>283601</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister. Given that Hanwha has undertaken to still build the redbacks in Victoria but will likely need to build export sales to make the plant profitable, what assistance will be government contemplate providing Hanwha to help them grow their exports?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Just on the number, because I think it's an important point: the <inline font-style="italic">Defence </inline><inline font-style="italic">s</inline><inline font-style="italic">trategic </inline><inline font-style="italic">r</inline><inline font-style="italic">eview</inline> looked at what is the capability the Australian Defence Force needs across the board. It made a recommendation to reduce the number of infantry fighting vehicles to 129. That is about transforming the Army to operate in the littoral environment, which is consistent with the recommendations and the direction of the <inline font-style="italic">Defence strategic review</inline>, given the circumstances Australia faces.</para>
<para>Subject to commercial negotiations, these vehicles are intended to be built in Australia. This requires, as you allude to, establishing capability in Australia to build more. We understand the importance of the building of exports to grow and sustain the defence industry businesses. The Defence Export Office is working closely with Defence attaches and Austrade's managers in key markets— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Defence Personnel</title>
          <page.no>30</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, Senator Wong. Just yesterday the Chief of the Defence Force, General Angus Campbell, announced an increase in Australian Defence Force pay of 11.2 per cent over the next three years. In the first year diggers will get four per cent, or 1.2 per cent less than current inflation. With inflation running rampant in our economy, this increase does not keep up with the cost of living. This is a pay cut to the diggers. At the same time, the CDF has announced an increase in the vehicle allowance for the senior commanders. This means that the brass—yes, once again, those senior officers that mark their own homework—will receive an increase in the vehicle allowance that is equal to about 10 per cent of their annual salary. Why do the Chief of the Defence Force and this government want to acknowledge the cost-of-living crisis for the top brass but not for their diggers?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Lambie. In relation to the point you make about a pay cut: can I be clear that the pay increase that is recommended, on the advice I have, is above the RBA's estimates for inflation over the next three years. We know where inflation is currently, and you are correct to raise that as a concern.</para>
<para>In terms of how this pay increase has been assessed: this is a pay arrangement which, firstly, is the highest pay increase in over a decade and, secondly, is above the RBA estimates for inflation over the next three years. If those estimates are correct, that is a good thing because that will be a real pay increase. I note also that the advice to me is that the pay offer that has been made reflects the same offer as provided to the ADF.</para>
<para>Pay rises for non-public officeholders are determined by the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal. The tribunal agreed to joint submissions from the CDF and the Commonwealth for a new workplace remuneration arrangement for 2023-26. The arrangement aligns with the revised APS offer of 11.2 per cent over three years and applies to both star rank and non-star rank members, with effect on 9 November 2023. In addition, many ADF personnel will receive allowances to recognise the unique environmental conditions in which they operate, as Senator Lambie would know, including operating in land, maritime and air domains. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Lambie, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Madam President. I see your government is not recognising the national security situation that we're in right now. Let's go to that, shall we? Our Defence Force is facing some of the worst morale, retention and recruitment numbers it has ever had. This Chief of Defence Force can't attract people, and he sure as hell cannot hold onto them. The Defence Force Welfare Association said in its submission, 'This offer will do little if anything to enhance recruitment and retention.' Why is this government teaming up with the CDF to be the Christmas Grinch and give diggers a pay cut before Christmas?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para> (—) (): First, I would say I respect your advocacy for our ADF personnel. You have been consist throughout your whole life, I'm sure, but certainly in all your time in the parliament. Second, I disagree with your assertion as to a pay cut. I understand why you put it, but I refer to my earlier answer that this pay increase—and it is a pay increase—is calculated above the inflation estimates that the RBA has put in place. But you are right: we have a retention issue and we have challenges in meeting the targets that were set, before we came to government, for the recruitment of personnel. We have worked— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Lambie, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Way back in 2014, then Prime Minister Abbott used the ADF as a stick to keep APS pay below inflation. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… I would be very surprised if anyone in the Commonwealth public sector receives more than is received by our Defence Forces.</para></quote>
<para>Prime Minister Abbott eventually backed down on that deal, stating:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government understands that the work performed by members of the Australian Defence Force is unique and crucial to our nation and our security.</para></quote>
<para>Which Tony Abbott does this government want to be—carrot Tony or stick Tony?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, I don't think any Labor person wants to be anywhere near to being a Tony, Senator Lambie, as you know. Most of us do remember the 2014 budget—I was here for that budget—and we remember the extent to which that Abbott government, despite telling the Australian people the contrary, cut health, cut funding for Indigenous affairs and cut funding for broadcasting. It was a horror budget. It was a budget which was full of betrayal, but perhaps I digress.</para>
<para>We respect our ADF personnel. We support our ADF personnel. We recognise the important role they play. We honour their service. We have put in place a pay offer which is assessed to be above inflation. We have put in place a retention bonus. I appreciate you are critical of that because we understand — <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Israel</title>
          <page.no>31</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator MARIELLE SMITH</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Following the abhorrent attacks by Hamas on Israel, can the minister update the Senate on the Albanese government's efforts to help Australians seeking to leave Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Smith, for your question. Thank you for your ongoing interest, alongside your colleagues, in our efforts to help Australians seeking to leave Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Overnight, Australia airlifted some 194 people from Tel Aviv to Dubai. These included 75 Australians, their families, and citizens from partner countries. As we speak, I'm very pleased that 222 Australians are on their way home from Dubai on an Australian government assisted departure flight. An assisted departure flight is also due to leave London for Sydney tonight. We have also secured seats for Australians on commercial flights and flights organised by partner countries. More than 1,400 Australians previously registered with DFAT have now left Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including more than 500 Australians and their families, on six assisted departure flights from Tel Aviv. I thank all those who have helped in these efforts.</para>
<para>We have for some time been encouraging Australians who want to leave to take the first option available to them. I will be clear: we have seen a lot of spare seats on flights for two days in a row, and we have people who have indicated they wish to fly who did not seek to fly. At this stage, we have no further flights from Tel Aviv scheduled, but we will continue to assess need. I want to be clear: my department is communicating directly with registered Australians, and we will notify with any updates.</para>
<para>I can also advise the Senate that Minister Watt has given approval for the National Emergency Management Agency to activate the AUSRECEPLAN. This will include coordination between federal, state and territory governments to support the reception of people arriving in Australia through assisted departures, helping connect people with homes and families, and providing community support and government support where required. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Marielle Smith, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator MARI</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>ELLE SMITH () (): Thank you, Minister, for that update. Reports indicate that there continues to be extreme difficulty in helping foreign nationals leave Gaza. Can the minister update the Senate on these efforts?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think we all know that there is a very dire humanitarian situation in Gaza, and the situation for Australians in Gaza and their families at home is deeply distressing. DFAT is now in direct contact with 45 Australians who are seeking to leave Gaza and is keeping them updated. I want to assure everyone that, through my own engagement and the engagement of officials, including in the region, we are doing all we can to support the work of the United States, Egypt and others to make the Rafah border crossing open for humanitarian purposes, including the passage of civilians. Regrettably, efforts to secure passage have not yet been successful, despite many attempts. We are already planning accommodation and onward travel for Australians in Gaza if safe passage through the Rafah crossing is secured. I welcome Secretary Blinken's update this morning. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Marielle Smith, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator MARIELLE SMITH</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can the minister outline to the Senate how Australia and the Pacific island family have been supporting each other in helping citizens seeking to leave Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Smith. I may just update the Senate first on Secretary Blinken's statement this morning that the US and Israel are developing a plan to enable humanitarian aid to reach civilians in Gaza, including the possibility of creating areas to help keep civilians out of harm's way. We support these efforts.</para>
<para>As Senator Smith indicated, we have seen the Pacific family working together in this crisis. Prime Minister Rabuka and I met today, as he is here on this guest of government visit. I thanked him personally for Fiji flying 13 Australians from Israel earlier this week. I indicate to the Senate that the Australian government has now flown 96 people from Pacific island nations on assisted departure flights from Tel Aviv overnight. This brings the total number to 135 citizens from Fiji, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and Samoa. This is what family can do together.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fuel</title>
          <page.no>32</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Just prior to the election, the now Prime Minister posted a photograph of unleaded petrol advertised in Canberra at $1.759 per litre. He commented, 'Who remembers when petrol was under a dollar a litre?' Minister, since you came to government, can you remember the last time unleaded petrol, on average, cost less than $2 a litre?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator, for the question. I know that I filled up the other day, and I was calculating how much, if I used the car more, I would be—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGrath</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Dramatic pause.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, I'm just waiting for Senator Cash to finish. When Senator Cash finishes talking at me, I might get to answer. I was calculating, because obviously I'm not in town much. I filled up the car, which is my mum's, actually, which I now have. And I was thinking, 'This reflects what we know, which is that people are hurting.' Fuel is much higher than we would all like, but, as you know, fuel is set by the global markets. You would know that petrol prices are set by global markets. What we can do is do something about getting wages moving again. What we can do is deliver cost-of-living relief through cheaper medicines. What we can do is deliver energy price relief.</para>
<para>I'm asked a cost-of-living question by a party that opposes cheaper medicines, a party that wants higher energy prices and a party that opposes cheaper child care. This is the party that pretend they care about Australians' cost of living.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Colbeck?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Colbeck</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>President, a point of order on direct relevance: the question was really quite specific, about when the last time the cost of fuel, on average, in Australia was less than $2.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The P</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There was a preamble, but I will remind Senator Wong of that part of your question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As I said, fuel prices are set by global markets. What we can ensure is that the ACCC monitors petrol, but the reality is that the factors driving fuel prices are the international benchmark price and the value of the Australian dollar. The last time I looked it wasn't the Liberal Party's policy to fix the exchange rate. What we can do is deliver cost-of-living relief, which those opposite reflexively oppose.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Colbeck, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>COLBECK () (): According to the Australian Automobile Association, the peak motor body representing Australian motoring associations, households now spend more than $415 per week on transport costs—fuel—accounting for almost 16 per cent of their income. When will Australians see fuel prices come down, just as the Prime Minister promised they would if Labor was elected?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Two points. The first is, as I said—and you know this—the factors driving fuel prices are international markets and the value of the Australian dollar. You have no policies whatsoever to deal with either of those issues or to change what the fuel price would be. That's the first point.</para>
<para>The second point is: What are the factors that a government can control? What can the government do? The first is that it can be a government that actually thinks we want to get wages moving. We want to get wages moving so that people have more capacity to deal with some of these really challenging economic circumstances that the global economy is imposing on this country. Those of us on this side actually think getting wages moving again is a good idea. What do you think? You're a low-wage party. You're the party of lower wages, a deliberate design feature. Senator Cash, who now is very quiet, put in a submission talking about the importance of lower wages. I mean, really! <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Colbeck, second supplementary.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In another pre-election tweet, 32 days after Russia invaded Ukraine, the Prime Minister stated: 'When the cost of things like petrol go up, families have to make sacrifices. It can mean movie night is cancelled or kids miss out on important school trips.' Given his preoccupation with photo ops, does the Prime Minister realise the sacrifices families are now making as a result of his broken promises on petrol prices, energy bills and wages?</para>
<para>A go vernment senator: That was your guy!</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll take the interjection from my side. Maybe you got the wrong Prime Minister, because the photo op guy was your guy, actually. Our guy and our people: we want higher wages. You want lower wages. We want energy price relief. You oppose it. We want cheaper medicines. You oppose it.</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Duniam!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We want cheaper child care. You oppose it. And on and on and on. You're a bunch of frauds when it comes to cost of living, and people know it. People know you're not serious about cost of living. You've always been the party of lower wages and you always will be.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Interjections are incredibly disorderly.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tasmania: Salmon Industry</title>
          <page.no>33</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Senator Farrell. I refer to the minister's recent visit to the great state of Tasmania, where he met with representatives of the salmon industry to discuss the industry hitting a milestone in salmon exports. During the visit, he publicly spoke about how these exports support more than 5,000 Tasmanian workers in the industry, with around 85 per cent of these workers being in regional areas. Can the minister update the Senate on these discussions with the salmon industry and the significant levels of exports which are helping to support these critical Tasmanian jobs?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Urquhart for her question. Senator Urquhart has a very well-deserved reputation as a champion for the over 5,000 Tasmanian workers in the salmon industry. The salmon industry is a critical employer creating jobs across Australia, and Senator Urquhart has been actively engaging with the industry to help support Tasmanian jobs, including in a number of recent meetings on the west coast.</para>
<para>I've had a great affinity with the industry ever since I first visited my uncle Jack, who lived on Cat Island in the middle of Macquarie Harbour. Back then he used to recount rowing his boat out into the harbour to rescue salmon pens that had become loose from their moorings. The industry has come a long way since then. Now the salmon industry contributes $1.36 billion in economic activity to Tasmania.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll repeat that for you, Senator Duniam: $1.36 billion of economic activity. During my visit, it was announced that the industry had hit a milestone of $1 billion in cumulative exports over five years. I'll repeat that for you: $1 billion in cumulative exports over five years. This is due to exports nearly doubling in volume and tripling in dollar terms, growing from just under $100 million in 2018-19 to $300 million last year. This is having flow-on benefits across the supply chain to companies like Polyfoam, who I met in Tasmania. They come from Adelaide and make the innovative packaging to export salmon to overseas markets. We want to work with the industry to grow these exports further.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Urquhart, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What great news for such an industry, which is creating significant economic activity for Tasmania! Exports are clearly an important part of the industry's future. The minister mentioned the tripling of salmon exports over five years, with the industry recording nearly $300 million in exports last year. How is the industry taking up opportunities to further expand exports and support even more jobs in Tasmania?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Urquhart for her first supplementary question. On my recent visit to Tasmania, I heard how the industry is increasing exports and creating more well-paid Tasmanian jobs. Tasmania now rivals major producers like Norway, Chile and New Zealand, having exported 80,000 tonnes of salmon to 21 countries over the past five years, and the industry is casting its net wide to land more export opportunities. I know that the major salmon producers in Tasmania are working with Austrade to expand their exports. Austrade has taken salmon exporters to important trade shows, introducing international buyers to salmon exporters, and has facilitated inquiries from global customers about the export of Tasmanian salmon. The salmon industry is expanding to new markets and has welcomed the government's approach to diversifying trade opportunities, including by negotiating free trade agreements. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Urquhart, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The salmon industry is also benefiting from the Albanese government's trade diversification agenda. How is the work of our government supporting the industry to grow exports and deliver more of these well-paid jobs for Tasmania?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Urquhart for her second supplementary question. The Albanese Labor government's trade diversification strategy is delivering for Australian exporters, including the salmon industry. Salmon companies are taking up opportunities under the Albanese government's trade agreements with India, and exports to India commence this year. Tassel, a fantastic Tasmanian company, Senator Duniam—</para>
<para>Opposition senators: It's Tassal.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Tassal—okay, I'll agree with that—recently announced it had already exported 30 tonnes of salmon to India and has a goal of reaching 100 tonnes over the next 12 months. These same companies will be looking to the Albanese government's South-East Asia economic strategy and seeing even more opportunities to export high-quality salmon to consumers across the region.</para>
<para>Labor's trade diversification strategy is growing exports in important sectors, and we want to see more exports because more exports mean more well-paid jobs. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well-paid jobs is a good note to end on. I ask that further questions be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Pape</inline><inline font-style="italic">r</inline>.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS</title>
        <page.no>34</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fuel</title>
          <page.no>34</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CANAVAN</name>
    <name.id>245212</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong), to a question without notice asked by Senator Colbeck today relating to fuel.</para></quote>
<para>The Voice debate is now over and, given that, it's time for the government to listen to the Australian people about how they are struggling right now with the cost of living, with high prices for almost everything, with higher interest rates and with maintaining their ability to service their mortgages.</para>
<para>I was out at prepolls over the last couple of weeks, and I listened to voters coming in to vote on the government's Canberra Voice. Many people raised the issue of how much petrol costs right now. I don't think it's a good enough answer for a government to say, 'It's totally out of our control. We can't do anything for you.' It's especially not an acceptable answer given that, when the Prime Minister was opposition leader and he was trying to get support from the Australian people, he made it known—and he certainly suggested to the Australian people—that he could do something about it. At multiple times on the campaign trail in the last couple of years before the election last year, the Prime Minister attacked the government for the high prices at the time, which were about $1.70 to $1.80 a litre. Wouldn't it be great to go back to those days? He was out there complaining and pinning it on Scott Morrison, the then Prime Minister, and blaming him somehow for those high petrol prices. Now that he is the Prime Minister, he's washing his hands of it completely. He's Pontius Pilate now. He can't do anything about it—'It's got nothing to do with me. Go talk to somebody else.' It's deceptive to the Australian people for Anthony Albanese to have acted in that way and to suggest that he could do something about petrol prices and then, once people supported him and voted for him, to completely walk away from any of those statements or problems. I also think it's incorrect.</para>
<para>There are things that we could do—admittedly things that may take time to benefit the Australian people—to restore a degree of independence and self-sufficiency for our country when it comes to our energy needs. That's what should be the focus of any Australian government. In a large landmass like we have in Australia, there should be a concerted effort to keep ourselves independent for our energy needs, to establish energy independence and, in fact, to establish energy abundance. We should have an abundance of energy available to us in this country, and not be beholden to the dictatorial regimes of Russia and Saudi Arabia, who are principally responsible for the recent increases in petrol prices. There is no doubt—and I accept what Senator Wong was saying—that there are international factors here. What's happened in the last few months is that Saudia Arabia and Russia have got together and restricted the supply of oil to the world. Our dollar has fallen. I think it's partly a lack of confidence in this government's financial merits that's contributed to it falling. Those factors have made a difference, but why do we sit back and say that there's nothing we can do about that?</para>
<para>We've got a massive country. Our best geologists say there are a trillion barrels of oil in north Western Australia. Just 20 years ago, we used to produce enough raw petroleum to service almost all our needs, with 96 per cent of our needs met by our own petroleum production. In the past few years we have lost two oil refineries, despite efforts—the coalition government kept the two we've got left; they were kept alive. The former coalition government was putting money into fuel storages around the country, to make sure we had more than just 35 days of reserves of our net import needs.</para>
<para>These are things we should be doing, and principally we should be supporting our oil and gas industry to invest in oil and gas fields in this country so we can break the control that Saudi Arabia, Russia and other OPEC countries have over our nation and over the wallets of Australian consumers. We should be investing in those industries. Instead of that, the government, in their first budget, cut over $50 million to support finding new discoveries of oil and gas across Australia, including in the Beetaloo basin. A few months later they put massive new regulations on our oil and gas industry, which has meant that $1 billion of investment in a new gas field in western Queensland has been paused and frozen for almost a year now.</para>
<para>These are the things the government could do to help, but instead they are telling you that there is nothing they can do. Apparently there is nothing they can do to help you. Well, they should be doing what they can. They should be making an effort here to help Australian consumers with the high price of petrol, with the high price of fuel, especially given that they made those promises on the campaign trail.</para>
<para>There is a limited time here where we can do these things, because it will take a long time for those investments to pay off. It's important for the government to listen to the Australian people now. All they've been wanting to talk about for the past six months is the Voice. It's time for them to listen, because Australians are hurting, Australians are doing it tough, and they deserve a government that actually has a plan to do something about it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, I think that's completely wrong. We have been talking about the cost of living ever since we've come into government. So, what Senator Canavan has said is absolutely wrong. We have spoken about the Voice as well, but so have they; they spoke about the Voice as well. We understand that household budgets are tight and are impacted by cost-of-living pressures. We know that. And we know inflation is being felt around the kitchen tables right across this country. But what we saw with the previous government—what did they do? They left us with a $78 billion deficit, one that we've turned around into a $22 billion surplus. That's what we've done. They stand up here, holier than thou, and have a go at us for not looking at the cost of living, which is wrong.</para>
<para>We know that people are paying more for the things they can't do without. That's why we're addressing inflation. We know that that is the No. 1 challenge in our economy, and we are providing targeted and responsible—and that's the real key here—cost-of-living help. That is the Albanese government's No. 1 focus. Our government's cost-of-living support packages are targeted. They go to those in our community who need it most. Our help is actually targeted at those who need the most help, and where pressures on their living expenses are highest.</para>
<para>We all remember the energy debacle we had with those opposite. Who didn't support the energy proposals that we put up, to try to cut the price of electricity for ordinary Australians? Those opposite—they voted against it over there. Cheaper medicines? They voted against it. General patients are now able to save up to $180 a year if their medicine is able to be prescribed for 60 days. That is a huge saving for a lot of people around this country. But who tried to stop that? Those opposite. They get up here and they talk about the cost of living, they talk about the prices of things that people can't afford, but when we put up something that will help people to make ends meet, they stop it: they stand up and they vote against it.</para>
<para>We have put up the JobSeeker payment. Around 782,000 people will benefit from a $40-per-fortnight increase to JobSeeker. That is helping people. Around 220,000 Australians will benefit from a $40-per-forthnight increase to youth allowance. Yet those over there say we are doing nothing to help the cost of living in this country. That is entirely wrong. It is as though what they have to do is spread the fear amongst everyone out there in the community. We've just seen the past six months of that, and we're now seeing it again with everything else.</para>
<para>Around housing: who stopped the housing bill getting through? That bill was trying to put a roof over the heads of people who are struggling to do that. Who, for months and months, held up the housing bill? Those opposite—amongst others. But they tried to stop it.</para>
<para>Around 1.1 million Australian households will benefit from the 15 per cent increase to the Commonwealth rent assistance maximum rates that we proposed and we have brought in. That is the largest increase in the household Commonwealth rent assistance in 30 years. But, instead of providing relief, what those over on that side, those in the coalition, want to do is to put up roadblocks.</para>
<para>Instead of having answers, they're aimless. The only answer that they have is 'no'. It's why they're called 'the no-alition'.</para>
<para>They said 'no' to the lower power prices. We've introduced coal and gas price caps that ease the pressure on energy bills. They said 'no' to that. They said 'no' to energy bill relief. In partnership with the states, we are delivering rebates for around five million households.</para>
<para>An honourable senator interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I know—it hurts, doesn't it, Senator? To five million households, we are providing energy bill relief, and to one million small businesses. One million small businesses and five million households are getting energy bill relief because we had the courage to bring it in. We had the courage to have a policy that looked at it. We had the gumption, the audacity, the cheek and the ability to bring it in—but not with support from that side of the parliament.</para>
<para>They said 'no' to the 30,000 new social and affordable homes, including for victims of domestic violence. It's hard to believe, isn't it? And they said 'no' to halving the cost of medicines. All these things have helped people out there with the cost of living. They are still doing it tough, but we are—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Bragg.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government really has two main issues: (1) it has not credibly taken on the inflation challenge; and (2) it has failed on productivity. On the issue du jour here, inflation: obviously, petrol prices and the like are impacted by global markets. We all know that. When the ABS and the government's advisers—the 'official family', as it were—look at all these things, they take out volatile factors, like the oil prices. But the problem for the government and the problem for the Australian people is that inflation has not been appropriately addressed, at least in a competitive sense. We are running a higher profile of inflation in this country than many other OECD and G20 nations, and that's because Canberra has got its foot on the accelerator in relation to the fiscal side of things. In this last budget, we've seen new decisions taken amounting to $50 billion in new expenditure. That comes on top of last year's budget, where you saw an even greater number. The reason that we have this persistent inflation is that Canberra can't stop spending.</para>
<para>Mr Chalmers can't say no to his favourite vested interests when it comes to putting money in their pockets. Of course, the whole business model of this government is to line the coffers of their fellow travellers—the people that preselect their senators and members; the people that fund their campaigns; the people that turn up for them on election day: the unions and the big super funds. This whole government's economic agenda is skewed towards lining the pockets of the unions and the super funds. So, whether it is policy on pattern bargaining—so that everyone is to be paid the same amount of money, no matter what their circumstances, effectively ending the idea and the concept of enterprise bargaining, which was introduced by Paul Keating, decades ago—or whether it is the removal of labour hire, which gives small business the flexibility it needs to meet changes in the economy, the whole of the government's economic program is geared towards these narrow vested interests. When you spend all your time thinking about these narrow vested interests, you have no time to work on the major economic challenges facing the nation.</para>
<para>So, when you look at what the government is putting on the books here in Canberra, for us to talk about when we come down to the bush capital, it's all about working through the laundry list of the bloodsuckers and the rent-seekers and trying to enact all the things that they are looking for in relation to their union and superannuation agendas. That is the major problem, I think, that the government has at its core.</para>
<para>That, of course, applies to the other issue, productivity. You can't improve productivity when you're running a government which is designed to slow productivity. The very nature of the laundry list of the issues from the unions, which is all about inserting themselves as the perennial and perpetual middle man, is to slow down productivity, to put sand into the gears so you can clip the ticket and collect a portion of the enterprise's business, because you are by law required to be there in some form, even if you're not needed. That is a fundamental problem that the government and now the Australian people have. It is a government for vested interests, working only for a narrow few, not for all of us.</para>
<para>So the test in the year to come, as we move into the second part of this term, will be, what are the policies that the government is going to put on the table to improve investment, to improve productivity? How much longer do the Productivity Commission's reports have to gather dust for? How many more months? The Productivity Commission says 'You should improve productivity because that will improve the lives of the Australian people.' The Labor government says 'No, that doesn't suit the unions and the super funds and the other bloodsuckers and the other rent seekers that have sent us here to Canberra.' That is the fundamental problem we have here. The test is, what can the Labor Party do, now they are the government—the dog that caught the car—to improve investment, jobs and productivity in this country?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government doesn't need those opposite to tell us that families are hurting with cost of living challenges. We know that the pressure on household budgets is real. We know that petrol prices are putting people under pressure. We know that we're seeing those rising petrol prices as a consequence of a global shortfall, but we know that that doesn't help families deal with the rising price of petrol, and we know that without the assistance of government families in this country would continue to struggle with the rising cost of living.</para>
<para>That's why our government's number one priority has been rolling out $23 billion of cost-of-living relief and cost-of-living support. We've been able to do that in a way that has taken the edge off inflation. We've been able to do that in a way where we can still record the first budget surplus in 15 years. That is the responsible approach to economic management that we are taking. It's the responsible approach we are taking to meeting the cost of living challenges that people are facing.</para>
<para>Those opposite come in here and ask us what we are doing to relieve the cost of living pressures that families are facing. Again, we feel those pressures. We see those pressures. That's why we've rolled out 10 measures just in the last few months to help families with the cost of living. Number 1: energy bill relief. Number 2: cheaper child care. Number 3: rent assistance increases. Number 4: tripling the Medicare bulk billing rate. Number 5: making medicines cheaper. Number 6: boosting income support programs. Number 7: fee-free TAFE. Number 8: building more homes. Number 9: expanding paid parental leave. Number 10: getting wages moving again.</para>
<para>All those opposite can say about the cost of living is that they either oppose those measures—they oppose our energy price relief plans; they oppose cheaper child care; they oppose cheaper medicines; they oppose putting money into social and affordable housing. Or they can say that they did absolutely nothing about these things while they were in government, leaving Australians with nothing more than a trillion dollars of debt and nothing to show for it. Or those opposite can say that they deliberately designed the cost-of-living crisis that Australians are facing today. They deliberately kept wages low; we know that. They froze Medicare; we know that. They gutted TAFE; we know that. Not only that; they went after some of Australia's most vulnerable lowest-income people with their unlawful and unethical robodebt program.</para>
<para>We are very proud to support the Australian people through the cost-of-living challenges that they face. We know that our energy bill relief plans are taking the edge off energy bills. We know that cheaper child care is supporting families with children. We heard this week that people are paying 14 per cent, or $2,000 a year, less if they're on about $120,000 with one child in long day care. That is a huge contribution to a family's budget. We have invested in the biggest boost to rent assistance in 30 years. That is a significant boost to people who are doing it tough and paying rent. We've tripled the bulk-billing rate, and that allows GPs to deliver free consultations for 11 million Australians. We're making medicines cheaper. We know how huge that is—making it cheaper to get necessary medicines like heart medicine and diabetes medicine. We are boosting income support programs—some of the biggest boosts we've seen in decades. Fee-free TAFE is helping people get back into training. We're building more homes, bringing the states and territories together with the federal government in the biggest boost to housing since World War II. We're expanding paid parental leave and getting wages moving again.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I asked a very simple question of the Leader of the Government in the Senate: 'Can you remember the last time unleaded petrol, on average, cost less than $2 a litre?' We still haven't had the answer to that question. Labor member after Labor member has got up and told us how focused they are. Their No. 1 focus is the cost of living. Not one of them could tell us the last time the price of fuel was under $2 a litre. They are so focused on the cost of living they don't know the last time the price of fuel was under $2 a litre, on average, across Australia. That's how focused they are.</para>
<para>They get up and they tell us that they understand how much this is hurting Australian families, that they care about the impact on Australian families. What Australian families want is not the government's understanding; they want the government to do the things they promised they would do before the election. That's what Australian families want. This government promised Australian families a $275 reduction in their energy prices. What has this government delivered? A 20 per cent plus increase in electricity prices, not a $275 reduction. This government promised higher real wages. What's this government delivering? Lower real wages. They dress it up in tricky language. They talk about getting wages moving again, but they don't admit and are not honest with the Australian people about the fact that real wages are reducing under this government. They have a go at us, yet real wages rose under the period of the previous government. Real wages increased under the coalition. There was low inflation, yes, and lower wage increases than the percentage numbers we're seeing now, but there was a real increase in wages. So people are actually seeing their overall situation go backwards under this government when they were promised it would go the other way.</para>
<para>Australians don't want the government's understanding. They want them to keep their promises. They want them to do what they said they would do. They inferred; that's what Mr Albanese was doing, when he said, in a photo op, 'Who remembers when petrol was under $1 a litre?' That's what that was all about; that was when it was 175.9c, just prior to the last election. No-one over there can tell us when it was last under $2. It was a simple question. But what did we get? We got the angry coming out. That's what we got. We ask the government a simple question about their promise, and what do we get? We get name-calling and the angry coming out.</para>
<para>The Australian people said very clearly last Saturday that they're sick of the name-calling. They don't want the guilt trip. They want some respect in this place, and that's what we should be seeing in a post-Jenkins environment. We asked a simple question. It's reasonable for us to ask that that question be answered. For the Australian people, it's reasonable to expect that the promises this government made when they were seeking election are kept. It's a pretty simple thing. We talked about restoring confidence in government. We talked about transparency. We're seeing none of that.</para>
<para>Let's go back to those promises. They promised lower inflation and they're delivering higher inflation. They promised a $275 reduction in electricity bills and they're delivering a 20 per cent plus increase. The inference was that they could lower fuel prices, and now they can't remember when the price of fuel was under $2. They promised higher real wages and they're delivering lower real wages. Australians deserves a government that will keep its promises.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Pensions and Benefits</title>
          <page.no>38</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RICE</name>
    <name.id>155410</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Senator Watt) to a question without notice I asked today relating to poverty.</para></quote>
<para>This week is Anti-Poverty Week. This is the second Anti-Poverty Week under the current Labor government. What do we have to show for it? Despite election promises to leave no-one behind, Labor is still choosing to abandon people on income support. Millions of jobseekers are still being forced to survive on payments well below the poverty line. Report after report from the Auditor-General and the Ombudsman show a failing social security system, and the government continues to support a system of mutual obligations and compulsory tasks that people on income support have to do, or they otherwise lose their payments.</para>
<para>Just last week the <inline font-style="italic">Guardian</inline> reported that an employment service provider ran training—one of these mutual obligations was that people had to undertake this training—and that this training instructed jobseekers on how to shower properly and asked them, in a questionnaire, if one of the reasons they were unemployed was that they were overweight or lazy. The government is continuing to support the system of mutual obligations despite mounting evidence from unemployment advocates, employment providers and academics showing these measures are ineffective and punitive.</para>
<para>In response to my questions about this today, the minister said mutual obligations shouldn't be punitive or degrading yet continued to support the concept of mutual obligations. It's pretty clear from Minister Watt's response to me today, and from other comments we've heard, that the government's current inquiry into Workforce Australia is not going to recommend that mutual obligations be scrapped. The government are kidding themselves. They're trying to spin us a tale that, under their watch, they're going to achieve the unicorn of a privatised mutual obligation system that's all sweetness and light, and that the folks who are unemployed will find it useful and empowering rather than punitive and degrading—fat chance!</para>
<para>The Greens have got a suggestion for the government: if you want to treat people with respect—which is what Minister Watt said he wanted to do in answer to my question today—make employment services voluntary rather than compulsory, and slash the costs by bringing them back under the government, recreating the Commonwealth Employment Service.</para>
<para>The best way to treat people who are looking for work with respect—the best way to treat students, young people and people with disability with respect—is to raise the rate of income support above the poverty line so people will not have to continue to struggle just to survive. To treat people with respect, make it so that they can afford to eat. Make it so that they can afford to pay their rent and to pay for their medications. The government could afford to do this. Why not put some of the billions of dollars you would save by slashing the system of mutual obligations and getting rid of privatised employment services into supporting people on income support and lifting their payments above the poverty line? Many people on JobSeeker are actually sick or too disabled to work, and they are barely scraping by on less than $54 a day. They can't afford transport to get to work. They can't afford to pay the rent. They can't afford to eat. It does not put them in a good place to be able to find work, and they should not be threatened with payment suspension for not attending discriminatory and useless training sessions.</para>
<para>Poverty is a political choice, and the Labor government are choosing to keep millions of people on payments well below the poverty line while handing out millions, hundreds of millions or billions of dollars to private employment providers. This Labor government is choosing to perpetuate the harmful and punitive system of mutual obligations and choosing to ignore the calls and the pleas of people on income support. This Anti-Poverty Week, we need more than platitudes from this Labor government. We need meaningful action to eradicate poverty in this country.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>39</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Special Purpose Flights</title>
          <page.no>39</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>39</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I note the order for the production of documents No. 309. The Senate, in relation to that, agreed:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… security agencies are best placed to complete threat assessments in relation to the security of politicians and their families;</para></quote>
<para>I also note that, in the same order, the Senate also agreed that the Minister representing the Minister for Defence must comply with the order 'to the extent such information can be provided consistent with advice from security agencies'. I can confirm that the order was complied with consistent with the terms agreed to by the Senate. Further, I note the status of the order, as recorded in the document compiled by the Department of the Senate, is 'Order complied with'.</para>
<para>For the additional information of senators, I can also advise that, consistent with the order for the production of documents No. 311, the government has provided a copy of the revised draft special-purpose aircraft guidelines to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security along with a confidential briefing with agencies that inform the special-purpose aircraft guidelines. I thank the Senate.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Deputy President—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm actually the President.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, President. I note the response from the minister.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Are you moving to take note of the response?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the statement.</para></quote>
<para>There was a complete failure on the part of the minister to engage with the issue that a majority in this House took issue with. The original order for the production of documents included all guidelines in relation to special-purpose flights. This is a matter of significant public concern. There were millions and millions and millions of dollars of now secret flights taken by Defence Minister Marles and other senior ministers. I note, in saying that, that in fact the foreign minister, who you would think would be at the top of the list for special-purpose flights, given the nature of the portfolio, is a relative minnow in this space.</para>
<para>The ministers that have been taking millions and millions of dollars worth of flights start with the defence minister, and the defence minister is refusing to say where those flights began and where they ended. The notional argument about not providing that information is that 'somebody in the AFP has got a concern that it might disclose a pattern of life'. These are meant to be special-purpose flights—extraordinary flights—not standard flights. It's not a taxi from Geelong to Sydney. They're meant to only be special-purpose flights. If they're showing a pattern, get a commercial flight, because commercial flights are designed for where there is a pattern.</para>
<para>So we've had the government refuse to disclose where the flights began and where they ended and refuse to disclose the advice on which that was based. Then we had the defence minister say to the parliament, in answer to questions in the other place—it was put on the record—that the government is fully complying with the guidelines when it comes to the disclosure of special-purpose flights. That's what Minister Marles said: 'The government fully complies with the guidelines on special-purpose flights.'</para>
<para>We found out through this OPD that the only guidelines that are in place are now a bit over a decade old and that those guidelines require six-monthly disclosure of all the information, which Minister Marles has refused to do. So, on the one hand, he said in answers to questions in the other place that the government has fully complied with the guidelines. Then we found out through the OPD and the documents that were produced under Senate order that the only guidelines that are in place are those guidelines from more than a decade ago, which require the full disclosure of the flights. Then we found out that there are in fact draft guidelines. The OPD required the production of all guidelines. That includes draft and final guidelines.</para>
<para>So we got a response from the government to the OPD that refused to provide the draft guidelines. Then we found out that the government, whilst insulting the Senate and not providing it to the Senate, did indeed provide those draft guidelines to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security—a gross discourtesy and flouting of the authority of the Senate. The government has said they can choose who they produce the draft guidelines to. They've chosen to provide them to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and they've thumbed their nose at the Senate. Then the response from Minister Wong didn't even mention it. It's a contemptuous response from the leader of the government in this chamber. It's utterly contemptuous of the Senate. It's an utterly, shamelessly contemptuous response from the leader of the government that doesn't even mention the core issue—the failure to produce the draft guidelines. What on earth could be the secrecy of draft guidelines? <inline font-style="italic">(</inline><inline font-style="italic">Time expired</inline><inline font-style="italic">)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Special-purpose aircraft are an important asset available to the Australian government and the government of the day. I would contend that at times they have been arguably underutilised by different governments. We are a G20 country. We're the 13th largest economy in the world, but we happen to be the most remote, the most distant, of those large economies. So using the SPAs is something we should acknowledge and something we should support our ministers and the Prime Minister to use, particularly for their international duties. But with that acknowledgement comes the importance of accountability for the use of special-purpose aircraft as well.</para>
<para>Reporting on SPAs has contained a costings approach that, frankly, I find somewhere between curious and dubious at times. It's a costings approach that creates multimillion dollar price tags, as was just referred to, and therefore a political deterrent to the use of those aircraft. The real test of transparency around special-purpose aircraft, a real test of accountability, shouldn't be some abstract dollar figure but, instead, if the flights are being used appropriately. That's where the importance of guidelines around the use of flights is critical.</para>
<para>We have released the February 2013 guidelines, which make clear that special-purpose aircraft can be used, but needing to be taken into account are factors, including the availability of flights on major domestic airlines, what alternative transport options are available and the reasons those alternative transport options are unsuitable.</para>
<para>We can only assume those 2013 guidelines remain in effect, because the government has only referred to the existence of draft guidelines being in existence, aside from these 2013 lines. Yes, the government has released a version of those draft guidelines to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. As a member of that committee, I have viewed those guidelines. I take my responsibilities as a member of that committee seriously. Membership of that committee is governed by obligations under the Intelligence Services Act. So, without revealing the contents of what was provided in that committee hearing, I do make two observations.</para>
<para>The first is that nothing in those draft guidelines in themselves is sensitive, nor would prevent their release to this Senate, nor their release publicly. They are no more sensitive than the previous guidelines that have been publicly released.</para>
<para>The second observation I would make is that the government has applied, in the reporting on special-purpose aircraft use that has been released, a greater level of restrictions and removal of information than was actually recommended in the security advice. Indeed, you don't need to be a member of PJCIS to know that, because there was released to the Senate a briefing paper of the security coordination group, dated 22 February 2023. This paper importantly identifies that the names of some passengers should be redacted, whereas what we've seen is that there are no names of any passengers provided in what has been released to the public or the Senate.</para>
<para>Importantly, this security advice, as well, has a statement:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The review focused only on security considerations surrounding the special purpose aircraft guidelines, and did not address accountability and transparency considerations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">These are recommended to be addressed by other government mechanisms before the special purpose aircraft guidelines are formalised and publicly released.</para></quote>
<para>This advice was received in February. It's now October. What has the government done about the 'accountability and transparency considerations' that its own security agency identified needed to be considered as part of the guidelines?</para>
<para>We take the security advice seriously, but there's an inconsistency between security advice that is being applied to special-purpose aircraft but is not apparently part of considerations for IPEA in the reporting of commercial travel services, which you would think would reveal a greater level of pattern-of-life activity. So there are inconsistencies from the government in their approach, there has been a failure to respond to their own department recommendation around transparency and there is a failure to provide accountability to this Senate. That's why the government needs to be far more open about what is happening with the special-purpose aircraft.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I remember the Labor Party going on about the last election, because this blue team over here had no transparency, didn't want to know about accountability and had no integrity. I tell you what? By gee whiz! Oh, my goodness me! What a let down! You took a promise to the Australian people about accountability, integrity, trust and transparency, and it's all blown out of the water already. It's absolutely amazing!</para>
<para>This is absolute rubbish, if I've seen anything on special-purpose-aircraft flights. I don't give a stuff about your guidelines, to be honest with you, because this is rubbish. Unless it is a national security factor, there should be no reason to hide the names of those people that were on those aircraft. There is absolutely no reason for that, apart from your lack of accountability over here in the Labor Party. That's what you promised at the last election. By the way, the Australian people had faith that you would produce that this term. You have failed to do so. They lost the election as part of that, but you have not been able to stay on the line and deliver what you promised to the Australian people.</para>
<para>In absolutely blows me away when you talk in this place about national security. You have an absolute lack of understanding of it. Like I said, there is absolutely no reason for your name not to be released if you are on a special-purpose aircraft, unless there is a national security issue. That is rubbish. It's taxpayers' money that you're using to fly. They want to know who is in there and why they're in there. That's what they want to know. You are flying around this country in those aircraft and you still can't be transparent about it. Goodness me. What a disgrace this Senate has become because of both the major parties. You wonder why Australians have absolutely no trust in us and have no respect whatsoever for us here. I thought you people were coming here to restore those values in the Australian people, and you have failed to do so. Why does that not surprise me?</para>
<para>This is rubbish having to waste time talking about getting a passenger manifest basically so that people can see what is going on. You can't do that? It's an absolute disgrace. In the meantime you're using guidelines and are chucking them over here. Do you have any idea of the look out there across this country today? Do you have any idea what they're thinking? I can tell you now.</para>
<para>You keep doing this. This is great for the next federal election. People have had enough. They have absolutely had enough of this. You had an opportunity to be open and honest with the Australian people over something so simple, but you blew it with this. Once again you're no better than the blue team, and that's why they lost the last election. I'm sure the Greens want some more members here in the Senate. JLN is going in all states in the Senate next time round in the federal election. You might want to do what you promised the Australian people and be transparent and honest. There's not one excuse—and don't use the excuse of national security—why these names cannot be out there.</para>
<para>Senator Wong wasted 10 minutes of taxpayers' money and time today coming in here with some drivel. It was absolutely rubbish. It's a disgrace. You have a good think about that because, quite frankly, we're going to keep coming. There is no reason to hide who was on those VIP flights. If you can't tell us, I have to ask: what are you hiding? Have we had too many family members running around? Have you had people on there that you don't want others to know you're associated with? Have we got union members or golf buddies? What's going on here?</para>
<para>Anyway, you let us all know when you're big enough to pass those manifests over so that we can see who was on those flights, instead of trying to hide everything under a rock. It is not helpful in this nation. That is why they have no trust in us. Quite frankly, I don't blame Australians. I wouldn't have any trust in us either, and I don't. Start being transparent and start getting the job done.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>41</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Withdrawal</title>
          <page.no>41</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Pursuant to notice of intention given yesterday, on behalf of Senator Thorpe, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in her name for today proposing the disallowance of Social Security (Remote Engagement Program Payment) Determination 2023.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>41</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Withdrawal</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>44</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Leave of Absence</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That leave of absence be granted to Senator Dodson from 16 to 19 October 2023, for personal reasons.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>44</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Postponement</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>44</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Disability Insurance Scheme</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>44</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We are moving to item 12 in today's Order of Business. I understand it's Minister Farrell.</para>
<para><inline font-style="italic">(Quorum </inline> <inline font-style="italic">formed)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government rejects the assertion in the motion. The government has previously outlined that we have claimed public interest immunity over the requested documents, as disclosure would prejudice relations between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. Disclosure would harm the Commonwealth's ongoing relations with the states and territories on this and other matters. The government has publicly released many documents on the framework. The Minister representing the Treasurer has already tabled key documents for the benefit of the Senate including the national cabinet media statement and ministerial media statements, budget papers and parts of the recently released intergenerational report that set out the impact of the framework.</para>
<para>The NDIS is a vital scheme, a measure of Labor's character and our values. We are ensuring that the NDIS can continue to provide life-changing outcomes for future generations of Australians with disability. The scheme was established with the purpose of making sure that the support is available for participants to live an ordinary life. The first step in achieving the eight per cent annual growth targets was the investment of over $732 million in this year's budget to uplift National Disability Insurance Agency capability, capacity and the systems to better support participants and improve the scheme. The government will work collaboratively with the disability community and states and territories to address the NDIS sustainability framework, which was agreed in April by national cabinet, and will ensure that every dollar goes to support those who need it most. This work will be shaped by the independent review of the NDIS, which is due to report shortly and has involved extensive consultation with people with disabilities and other stakeholders. The NDIS review will provide a reform pathway to make the scheme more effective and to achieve the target growth of up to eight per cent from 1 July 2026 as per the NDIS sustainability framework with further moderation as the scheme matures.</para>
<para>While the vision for the NDIS is right, there are a number of design and implementation issues that need to be addressed. All governments share the goal of reaching long-term sustainability for the scheme. The recent intergenerational report shows that in the absence of sustainability framework the NDIS costs would increase to 6.7 per cent of GDP by 2063-64, instead of 2.4 per cent of GDP. The eight per cent annual growth target means the NDIS remains demand-driven, so participants will be able to access the support they need for a fulfilling life. It means we are still provisioning for the growth in the NDIS to support Australians with permanent and significant disability. After a decade of neglect of the NDIS by the Liberals, our investment will moderate unnecessary further increases in the scheme's cost. We look forward to providing a further update of the NDIS Financial Sustainability Framework following a consideration of the NDIS review.</para>
<para>It is worth noting that there's been exponential increase in number of orders for production of documents. They have increased by a nearly third to almost two per sitting day. The data shows they are broader than ever before. Public interest immunity claims shouldn't be used as a measure of failure; they are also a tool that is available to the executive to explain why documents cannot be provided. If the executive is discouraged from making legitimate claims then transparency will reduce, because such an approach is unlikely to elicit greater production of documents. In half the cases where public interest immunity was claimed in response to orders for production of documents, the Senate ordered production of documents that would reveal cabinet deliberations or cause harm to relations between the Commonwealth and the states and territories or to our international relationships. The government acts to balance the demands of the Senate with the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of these deliberations and our relationships with other governments and nations.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEELE-JOHN</name>
    <name.id>250156</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the explanation.</para></quote>
<para>Before making my contribution, I will just ask my Senate colleagues who may have been used to my rather loud contributions on debates like this to tune in anew to the contribution I'm about to make. I want to acknowledge the seriousness of the step the Senate has taken today in asking for the attendance of the minister, a procedural step which I know has caused the minister personal inconvenience, which is a rare thing for this place to do. I want to now embark on an attempt to explain to those who may wonder why it is that the Senate has taken this step precisely why the Senate has taken this step and the grounds upon which we rebut the government's claim. In making this argument, I want to provide some basic context. 'Nothing about us without us' is something the disability community often articulate in our demand that we are centred in the decisions that impact us. It is something ultimately and absolutely that we are not seeing from the government of the day, particularly in relation to the NDIS and the release of the financial sustainability framework.</para>
<para>Here's what we know. Here are the facts: (1) back in April, the National Cabinet agreed to the NDIS financial sustainability framework; (2) the government have based their financial decisions around the targets for the NDIS on the contents of the framework; and (3) the government has repeatedly defied requests of the Senate to release the framework for broader scrutiny, first insisting it didn't exist and then claiming and invoking a public interest immunity claim. Such actions are not in line with the principle of 'nothing about us without us'—in fact, they flip the very notion on its head. What we are seeing is 'everything about us without us'.</para>
<para>The executive government have placed a claim of public interest immunity, and, as a result, we do not know framework's contents. We have not been provided with the actual nature and documentation of the framework. This is a cause for serious concern. The Australian Greens do not accept this claim. We do not believe that the release of this information would prejudice the relationships between the states and territories. This is an agreement on a framework which they all entered into as part of a National Cabinet process. There is unanimity among the states and territories on the contents of the framework. To argue before the Senate that its release would prejudice those relationships simply does not make sense. The only resulting impact of the release of these documents would be to provide greater information to the Australian public as to the thinking of the states and territories and the federal government in relation to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. That's important, because what this government does with the NDIS impacts the lives of hundreds of thousands of disabled Australians and their families.</para>
<para>Let's be really clear. The single biggest so-called budgetary saving in the government's first budget—the $59 billion saving—was based on the outcomes of this framework, and yet the framework has not been publicly released. This is wrong. It's particularly wrong in the context where the public has been asked to place great trust in the so-called independent NDIS review. There is now a question in the minds of the public. Is the review independent? Is it truly allowed to come to whatever findings the evidence leads it to, when the government has already decided to adopt a framework with such a significant financial implication that it is continually refusing to release it? Have decisions already been made? That's what it seems like to us. The Greens will continue to fight for transparency alongside the disability community in relation to the NDIS. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to, again, commend Senator Steele-John for this motion. It is not one that the coalition takes lightly. There are very, very serious issues that this government has to explain to the 610,000 Australians whose lives rely on the NDIS. This has been the subject of some considerable debate in this chamber, and the lack of transparency by those opposite is quite frightening. Measures that I put in place, when we were in government, to have monthly financial reports released publicly—and also regular quarterly reports—were incredibly important not only for participants of the NDIS but also for those in this place to have some visibility.</para>
<para>What the government is doing here is incredibly distressing, and not only for NDIS members; it should be a concern to every single person in this place. The government has repeatedly refused to provide the information based on a public interest immunity claim. As I said here previously and I would like to reiterate, that does not hold water. Let me remind you: if the minister concludes it is not in the public interest to provide the information, the minister must do two things. First of all, the minister must provide a statement on the grounds for that conclusion. We've heard repeatedly in this place that it would compromise state and federal relations, but, having conducted five, if not six, ministerial councils with disability ministers on this exact topic, I know that is complete rubbish. It is nonsense.</para>
<para>Even though they have made a statement that stretches credibility to its extreme, the second requirement is that the minister specify the harm to the public interest that could result if the information is provided. The government has in no way met that second test. They have not specified the harm to the public interest that could result if the information was provided. The only harm that would come is to Bill Shorten and to the Labor government. They went into the last election rejecting the hand of bipartisanship to have a serious look, together, at the sustainability of this scheme.</para>
<para>As an insurance scheme, ultimately there are only two levers available to have this as another demand driven scheme for which the federal government can control the budget, like Medicare, the PBS and others, and those are the number of participants in the scheme and the average cost per participant. That is patently obvious. It was obvious to the opposition before the last election, before they promised every single NDIS participant, past and future, that their plans would never be cut. That is the promise they went to the last election with. Bill Shorten was at the Press Club saying, 'There is no sustainability issue.'</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Reynolds, I remind you to refer to a member of the other place by their correct title.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My apologies, President. I thought I said 'Mr Shorten'.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, you didn't—twice.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Bill Shorten? The minister, or the then opposition spokesperson, went to the election and promised no cuts. He said that there was no sustainability issue, when he knew there was a sustainability issue. Any reading of any budget document, any estimates or any of the many documents that we released and they are now not releasing demonstrated that this was a program in serious trouble, but it was far too important to let fail. Since then, as with every other program, the government has implemented a review, and by all accounts it is finding what every other review before it has found—that improvements to services by the NDIA need to occur in many areas and that the scheme is currently uncontrollable.</para>
<para>What don't we know yet? We know that there is some form of sustainability framework—it was referenced, as the minister said, in the ministerial council meeting—but there was no detail. What we still don't know is what modelling was undertaken to underpin the government's eight per cent NDIS growth cap. We don't know when this modelling was undertaken or which agencies were involved in the modelling. The government won't release the modelling. Why won't it release the modelling? Alarmingly, at the last estimates, the NDIA CEO herself and the chair, Kurt Fearnley, both confirmed they were not consulted and the scheme actuary confirmed they were not consulted. So this government has already banked, in the last budget, somewhere upwards of $74 billion from cutting the growth rate from 14 to eight per cent with absolutely no information. It is a complete disgrace. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>ROBERTS () (): Unfortunately, we are here again for yet another slap on the wrist. This government continues to defy the orders of the Senate. There is no other word for this behaviour. It is contempt. It's time that the Senate started treating contempt with real punishments. Orders for the production of documents are a vital part of our democratic process. The Senate is constitutionally superior to every law or excuse that government might try to use to justify not handing over documents.</para>
<para>Right now, we're stuck in an ineffective cycle. The Senate makes an order demanding that the government table documents. The government may have a different opinion, yet these orders are not optional. They're Senate orders. The government defies the Senate anyway and refuses to hand over the documents. The Senate makes even more orders, rejecting the excuses from the government and affirming that the documents must be produced. The government yet again ignores the Senate's orders. That, ladies and gentlemen, is called contempt. We must punish it as such. Instead the minister is hauled in here for 15 minutes to give more excuses, and everyone lines up to give them a slap on the wrist and call them a naughty boy or a naughty girl. At the end, the minister sits down pretty chuffed with themselves because they haven't had to hand over any documents and haven't suffered any real punishments.</para>
<para>I say to the coalition and to the Greens: if you are serious about orders for the production of documents, about the explanations, about transparency and accountability, about being the house of review and about serving the people, bring on a contempt motion against the minister. We don't need a referral to the Privileges Committee to tell us whether it is contempt or not. The minister is now in direct defiance of multiple orders from the Senate. Bring on a motion of contempt or censure, and you will have our support.</para>
<para>I foreshadow that I will be introducing, before the end of this year, a confidential process to review documents where any public interest immunity is raised, such as these documents. Public interest immunities are raised on the basis that sensitive information should not be released to the public. Whenever the government makes that claim, it needs to be assessed. Senators should assess public interest immunity claims. That assessment can be done confidentially so that the public interest is still protected. I'll say it again: that assessment by the senators can be done confidentially so that the public interest is still protected.</para>
<para>To this end, I will be proposing an amendment to standing orders in relation to orders for the production of documents. This would trigger a formal process whenever a minister wishes to raise a public interest immunity claim. This process would require the relevant minister to explicitly outline to the Senate the actual harm that they say would flow from releasing information to the public, who we are supposed to serve. The minister would then be required to confidentially produce the documents to a Senate committee, where the documents would be made available only to senators for confidential viewing purposes. The Senate chamber as a whole would be able to confidentially make an assessment of the public interest immunity claim and whether or not there is any merit to it. If the minister does not comply with the process, it will be very obvious that the public interest immunity claim is not genuine. The Senate can then be more confident in applying sanctions such as censure and contempt. This would be fair to everyone.</para>
<para>This government continues to show callous disregard for the orders of this Senate on behalf of the people we represent. It's time the Senate punishes such behaviour appropriately. No more slaps on the wrist. Instead enforce the will of the Senate, acting on behalf of our constituents, the people of Australia.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONDOLENCES</title>
        <page.no>47</page.no>
        <type>CONDOLENCES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Nehl, Mr Garry Owen Barr, AM</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death of Garry Owen Barr Nehl AM, a former member of the House of Representatives for the division of Cowper, New South Wales, from 1984 to 2001.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>47</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cbus Super Fund</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>47</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Senate notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) freedom of information request no. 3331 (the request) sought correspondence, emails and communications between CBUS Super Fund and the Treasurer and his office since 21 May 2022,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) certain documents were not released, or were heavily redacted, under section 45 and subsection 47G(1)(b) of the <inline font-style="italic">Freedom of Information Act 1982</inline>, in response to the request on the basis that the documents contain material obtained in confidence or disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to prejudice the future supply of information to the Commonwealth, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) documents obtained in confidence or where the disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the future supply of information to the Commonwealth is not a sufficient public interest immunity ground to withhold the documents from the Senate;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Thursday, 19 October 2023:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the email from CBUS Super Fund dated 2:12:59 PM on Monday, 6 February 2023 (document no. 1), without the redactions referred to in paragraph (a)(ii),</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the email from CBUS Super Fund, dated 3:02 PM on Thursday, 24 November 2022, and the response, dated 3:55:00 PM on Thursday, 24 November 2022 (document no. 7), without the redactions referred to in paragraph (a)(ii), and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) two further documents (nos 2 and 8), that were not released in response to the request, due to the operation of section 45 and subsection 47G(1)(b) of the <inline font-style="italic">Freedom of Information Act 1982</inline>.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "19 October 2023" and substitute "6 November 2023".</para></quote>
<para>It is a simple change to the date on which the material is required to be laid on the table by the minister. My amendment changes the date from Thursday 19 October 2023 to Monday 6 November 2023.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek some guidance from Senator McKim. I've only just seen this. I wonder if the mover of the motion was aware and agreeable to the proposed date?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I can indicate that the change of date is required for the Australian Greens to support this motion.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Original question, as amended, agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>48</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Withdrawal</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 312 standing in the name of Senator Bragg.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>48</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Parole Applications</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>48</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Cash, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that the Minister representing the Attorney-General has not complied with order for the production of documents no. 324 agreed by the Senate on 11 September 2023;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) notes that the response to the order, that 'there are no documents that contain all of the information specified in the order', is not a valid reason to deny information of concern to the Senate;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) notes that <inline font-style="italic">Odgers' Australian Senate Practice </inline>states that 'orders for the production of documents may require the production of documents in the possession of a person or body, or the creation and production of documents by the person or body having the information to compile the documents'; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) requires that the Minister representing the Attorney-General comply fully with the order by 3 November 2023.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that general business notice of motion No. 345, standing in the name of Senator Cash and moved by Senator O'Sullivan, be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:27] <br />(The President—Senator Lines) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>41</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>20</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>White, L.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>49</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference</title>
            <page.no>49</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind senators that yesterday a division was deferred relating to a closure motion moved by Senator Watt, concerning a proposed reference to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee. I understand it suits the convenience of the Senate to hold that division now.</para>
<para>The question is that the closure motion as moved by Senator Watt be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:34]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>32</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                  <name>White, L.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>29</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that the motion proposing a reference to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, moved by Senator Cash, be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:37] <br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>27</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>34</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                  <name>White, L.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF URGENCY</title>
        <page.no>50</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF URGENCY</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Bushfires</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>296215</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator David Pocock has submitted a proposal under standing order 75 today:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In the face of heightened bushfire risk and with firefighters at capacity, there is an urgent need for substantial and new federal government investment in technologies such as water gliders and drones for early detection of bushfires."</para></quote>
<para>Is consideration of the proposal supported?</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</inline></para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>296215</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In the face of heightened bushfire risk and with firefighters at capacity, there is an urgent need for substantial and new federal government investment in technologies such as water gliders and drones for early detection of bushfires.</para></quote>
<para>Today I bring an urgency motion about bushfire preparedness. We have now heard on multiple occasions from experts in this field, from firefighters, from forest ecologists and from bushfire survivors about the need for Australia to step up our bushfire preparedness. When it comes to stopping bushfires, we know that every second counts. The sooner we identify and address fires, the better our chance of avoiding things like the terrifying pyrocumulonimbus clouds that have become a regular occurrence with increasing climate extremes. These clouds are generated by the rising heat of megafires and can influence weather around them. They can create their own lightning and wind, even lighting and driving further fires. As many Australians have seen with their own eyes, they are utterly terrifying and devastating for people and property. We need to invest to be better able to monitor fires and ensure we are getting to them as soon as possible.</para>
<para>Thankfully we have some of the brightest minds in the country working on solutions to this. ANU researchers have built an automated algorithm that can detect smoke. Cameras running the algorithm could be mounted on fire towers and programmed to send alerts to emergency services when smoke is sighted. The ANU and a Sydney firm, Carbonix, are developing long-range drones that can fly over secluded landscapes day and night to detect bushfires early. A lightning storm can have thousands of strikes, so it would take a long time to act on all of those, but, if we can narrow it to tens of strikes using the new AI algorithms, we will have a better shot at stopping catastrophic bushfires. In collaboration with the ANU, the OzFuel satellite mission uses novel infrared technology to pick up what types of vegetation are more prone to catching fire. If we can identify areas at the highest risk, we can give firefighters more time and create the highest chance of being successful.</para>
<para>Autonomous GPS targeted gliders—which, built at full scale, could each carry 500 litres of water and saturate specific targets such as trees ignited by a dry lightning strike—could be built using dense cardboard and off-the-shelf avionic components at a low cost, around $500 each, and be launched from a high-flying cargo aircraft, decelerating by parachute and splitting open to disperse and mist the water right over the burning target. We're only talking about tens of millions of dollars here to support our brave firefighters, who are at capacity. Many of them have been getting back from the Northern Hemisphere fire season and are already fighting fires across the country here—and it looks to only get worse this year. If El Nino persists it could be catastrophic next year. We must step up. We have the resources to do this. For a country that is spending the lowest amount on research and development, as a percentage of GDP, in its history, it is urgent that the government steps up and puts money into funding these cutting-edge technologies to assist firefighters and communities who are being impacted by fires.</para>
<para>There are, of course, other things that this parliament needs to do when it comes to mitigation and reducing emissions, such as looking at things like native forest logging and how that increases the likelihood of forests igniting and burning. But we have an opportunity for this government to invest in cutting-edge research and technology that, once developed, could become a huge export industry as well as helping our firefighters and communities across the country as we enter uncharted territory when it comes to the climate.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVEY</name>
    <name.id>281697</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I welcome the opportunity to speak on this urgency motion today, and I thank Senator Pocock for bringing this issue to the attention of the chamber. It is absolutely true that there are indications from weather professionals, emergency management professionals and even recent events that we face heightened bushfire risk this season and very possibly continuing increased risk for seasons to come. We absolutely need to get smarter in how we deal with these increasing disasters. I want to acknowledge that there are currently around 70 bushfires burning, as we speak, around the state of New South Wales. Sadly, overnight there was the loss of the life of one of our volunteer firefighters.</para>
<para>From my travels with the Senate Select Committee on Australia's Disaster Resilience, I have seen where looking at new technology and best practice internationally leads to better outcome in cities like Townsville, where they've got their bespoke and high-tech emergency management hub. I've seen what they're doing to also engage with the community to have early response preparedness. The proposition put forward today by Senator Pocock is to invest in the best technologies available in the face of the heightened bushfire risk. ANU professor David Lindenmayer spoke at an event this morning on bushfire preparedness, and he has previously written on the changing nature of bushfires and the imperative for Australia to embrace new technologies that will identify early fire areas and use technologies that can respond more quickly than the current traditional methods of ground crews and large aerial tankers.</para>
<para>Today's forum recognised the importance of rapid responses to fires, particularly in light of research that suggests that extreme fire risk is 10 times greater than it was when most baby boomers were born. This has been backed up by other experts such as Greg Mullins, the former New South Wales Commissioner of Fire and Rescue, who has over 50 years of experience as a volunteer firefighter. We know that—as welcome as the large fire bombers are, especially when a fire is out of control and has taken hold—the reality is early detection, better communication, better preparedness and the use of new technologies would seem to be the key to better outcomes for land, property, stock and human lives.</para>
<para>One thing I want to bring to the attention of the Senate is, as Senator Pocock quite rightly said, that the new technologies could cost maybe tens of millions of dollars. Currently, there is a fund—the Disaster Ready Fund—which provides $200 million a year in grants for disaster readiness and risk reduction. But, in the first round of funding from the Albanese government—announced in June this year—I must say that I was somewhat underwhelmed at the lost opportunity to deliver real change.</para>
<para>Instead of looking at new technologies, such as those that Senator David Pocock has identified in this motion, we've funded removing willow trees from a riverbank or building climate-resilient visitor infrastructure in the ACT. I don't see how they will significantly reduce risks. I've spoken to the Insurance Council of Australia, who have over the last couple of years prepared numerous reports on the financial costs of disasters in Australia and on how we can reduce the risk. We need to look at the disaster reduction fund and look at how we spend that money so that we are actually reducing the real risk faced by Australians.</para>
<para>As this urgency motion suggests, such technology being proposed involves, yes, a substantial early investment, but it needs a sound business case that would need to be developed and that would reduce risk. Natural disasters impact every community at every level—local, state and federal. We need to be open to new technologies that make a difference and can detect fires earlier. I thank Senator Pocock.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Right now bushfires are raging in nearly every Australian state and territory, and we're only halfway into spring. Tragically, bushfires are killing people, destroying property and ravaging fragile ecosystems rich in natural and cultural values. After three consecutive La Nina years, followed by what looks today likely to be a strong El Nino year, things are tragically likely to only get worse.</para>
<para>I want to be a very clear that the Greens have absolute faith in Australia's professional and volunteer firefighters and disaster responders, and we thank them for risking their lives to help keep us safe, but the Greens have very little faith in the level of resources that these highly skilled people are being provided with and the support that they need to do their jobs under the threat of increasing fires and floods, driven by a changing climate.</para>
<para>Disasters are national emergencies, and they demand national responses. The Greens believe Australia needs and deserves a dedicated national disaster response unit, and we've taken this policy to the last two federal elections. A national disaster response unit would allow a flexible and rapid response to disasters such as fires, particularly remote area fires, and floods. Such a unit could have its own dedicated aerial firefighting fleet of fixed-wing and helicopter aircraft to provide direct firefighting capacity and highly trained responders trained in remote area firefighting and flood rescue. Taken together, this would constitute a national, specialised remote disaster response capability that could be stationed and deployed rapidly across the country as needed.</para>
<para>The way you stop bushfires from destroying ecologies, destroying infrastructure, destroying homes and destroying lives at mass scale is to detect them early, hit them hard and hit them fast. If the Albanese government was serious about making this country safer from bushfires, it would stop green-lighting new coal, gas and native forest logging projects. That is what a government genuinely committed to making us safe from disasters would put in place.</para>
<para>As the Victorian Assistant Chief Fire Officer, Mick Tisbury, has said, 'There are no climate sceptics at the end of a fire hose.' But, what do you get from this government? A proposal to spend $370 billion on the AUKUS submarine killing machines that will make Australia less safe. But they won't spend anything like what is necessary to actually save lives from disasters like remote area fires, fires on the edges of our cities and floods right around this country that are being increased in number and scale by the breakdown of our climate and the catastrophe that this planet's climate is going through as we stand here and debate this today.</para>
<para>The other thing that this government needs to do is stop native forest logging, because, firstly, native forest logging actually makes fires more likely and worse. It makes them burn hotter and faster. And, secondly, the way that regime of native forest logging is conducted, certainly in my home state of Tasmania, which is a CBS strategy—clear-fell, burn and sow—it's the burn bit that's the problem, colleagues, because I have lost count of how many of these so-called regeneration burns have broken their boundaries over the years and started mass bushfires. It is institutionalised pyromania. That's what we are facing.</para>
<para>This government has got to get serious about building a disaster response capability in this country. It's got to be prepared to invest even a small percentage of what it invests into killing machines into actually responding to disasters that are killing Australians. It's got to stop approving new coal and gas projects, and it's got to end native forest logging.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on this matter of public importance regarding bushfire preparedness. Since the Black Summer bushfires, two-thirds of Australians have been impacted by natural disasters, some more than once. We know that, due to climate change, disasters will become increasingly frequent and intense, which is why the Albanese government is taking significant steps to build our resilience and response capabilities.</para>
<para>To name just a few, we've legislated much more ambitious emission reduction targets and ended the coalition climate wars. We've implemented 12 of the 15 federal recommendations from the bushfire royal commission, with the remainder well underway. We've created one unified national emergency management agency, NEMA. We've established the Disaster Ready Fund, which will invest $1 billion in disaster mitigation over the next five years, with matching funding from all other levels of government. We've delivered a new Australian fire danger rating system. We are upgrading our national flood gauge warning system and developing a new cell broadcast national messaging system to improve how we track and get informed about disasters. And we're building the first ever National Emergency Management Stockpile to supplement the stockpiles states and local government areas have on emergency housing, water purification equipment and other key goods. These are just some of the steps and investments this government has made in improving our disaster preparedness.</para>
<para>As Special Envoy for Disaster Recovery, I regularly travel to disaster impacted communities around the country, speaking to individuals who are dealing with the impacts of natural hazards that have turned into humanitarian disasters. During these visits, I've been struck by the innovation of local communities and the many positive examples of projects that are building resilience across Australia.</para>
<para>In May, I had the privilege of meeting the Adelaide Hills Community Resilience Team and learning about their work. The Community Resilience Team is responsible for delivering the Towards Community Led Emergency Resilience initiative, a project which is increasing community capacity, leadership and sustainability for bushfire events. That project supports communities to prepare for bushfires and other emergencies, taking learnings from bushfire events that have affected the Adelaide Hills district, in particular Sampson Flat, Cudlee Creek and Cherry Gardens. This important initiative was funded by the Australian government through the Black Summer Bushfire Recovery Grants Program and Preparing Australian Communities grants. I was pleased to learn that the team received the Resilient Australia Local Government Award at the South Australian Resilient Australia Awards earlier this month. Congratulations to Miranda, Megan, Sophie, Vanessa and Pia for your outstanding work.</para>
<para>Another example is Young Change Agents, a national, non-profit social enterprise founded in 2016. It runs programs following disasters that empower youth when they need it most, giving them back some control over how the situation is affecting them and helping them to make a difference in the community. Children and young people are often overlooked when we talk about community preparedness, despite being one of the most vulnerable and psychologically impacted demographics during disasters.</para>
<para>The Select Committee on Australia's Disaster Resilience travelled to the Northern Rivers in June. We had the privilege of meeting Jali Tan Costello, a member of Young Change Agents, from Lismore. Jali became involved in the Young Change Agents program following the major flooding in 2022 that devastated large areas of the community. Jali shared her story with us, some of which I'll now read:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Last year my community and school experienced a catastrophic disaster that saw devastation throughout the district. After three days of being trapped on our property due to a landslide, I was able to help my family clear out my grandparents' home. This was physically productive; however, I was left feeling frustrated and disconnected from helping my broader community. However, programs of Young Change Agents offered me important opportunities to reconnect, activate my resilience and find purpose in my learning. As a class, our opinion was valued. We instigated change and our impact was far-reaching.</para></quote>
<para>Jali's story demonstrates the critical importance of engaging our children and young people in disaster risk reduction and recovery.</para>
<para>While I could talk for hours about many different programs, I look forward to tracking the ongoing progress of these projects and to finding out more about future initiatives.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in support of Senator David Pocock's matter of urgency. As the chair of the Senate Select Committee on Australia's Disaster Resilience, I have learnt a lot—I'm sure we all have on that committee—in the past year about what our communities need to protect them in this bushfire season. As of Tuesday 12 September, the committee had received over 138 submissions from organisations and everyday Australians, and we thank them dearly for that. Many of them are still coping with the impacts of the Black Saturday bushfires. Some of them are still living in tents and caravans.</para>
<para>Queensland Fire and Emergency Services told the committee that the capacity of local governments to respond to natural disasters like bushfires is falling and that communities need more help from state governments and the Commonwealth. When a community is impacted by a fire it is the local government—the councils—that are on the front line. They are responsible for the evacuation centres and for most of the local roads, and they are often the ones left to do the clean-up. A large number of submissions pointed to the lack of resourcing to local governments and said that councils need to be better resourced and that they need to be consulted. Local councils don't have much say in the equipment they are given by state and federal governments, but they have to carry the cost of the maintenance, so, even if they get new fire trucks or water gliders or drones, they have to maintain them—and not only that; they have to hire and pay staff to operate the equipment. Many of these councils simply do not have the money to do that.</para>
<para>Mr Graeme Kelly, the General Secretary of the United Services Union, told the committee that Commonwealth funding to local councils has been decreasing since 1975. The <inline font-style="italic">2021 National state of the assets report</inline> from the Australian Local Government Association, or ALGA, found that local government buildings and facilities were in extremely poor condition. ALGA has estimated that flood damage to council roads in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia alone is expected to be at least $3.8 billion. Councils collect less than four per cent of national taxation. ALGA is calling for financial assistance grants to be restored to at least one per cent of Commonwealth taxation revenue. That doesn't seem like a big ask, does it?</para>
<para>Just a month ago a community in Tasmania was cut off by a raging bushfire. Like a lot of communities down there, Coles Bay has just one road in and out. We need new technologies and we need funding at a grassroots level so our councils can do everything that they possibly can to prepare, warn and protect our communities because, like I have already said, they are the front line.</para>
<para>This September was the driest in our history. June to August 2023 were the hottest months on earth ever recorded. Our bushfire season has already started, and in August the CEO of the Australian Fire Authorities Council, Rob Webb, urged all Australians to plan and prepare for this year's bushfire season. The government needs to take that advice, too, and give our councils what they need to protect their communities. You need to do that. They are on starvation— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CICCONE</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd also like to speak on Senator Pocock's motion on the need for greater investment in technology to assist Australian communities fighting bushfires. I thank Senator Pocock for bringing this very important issue to the Senate's attention. Australia was given an unwelcome reminder of the risk and impact of bushfires just a couple of weeks ago in my home state, Victoria, where out-of-control fires threatened lives and many homes in Gippsland. Fires caused power outages, destroyed at least one home and triggered several evacuations.</para>
<para>Communities in Gippsland are, sadly, all too familiar and aware of the threat that bushfires pose after the devastating Black Summer fires in 2019-20. These bushfires should have served as a stark warning to governments about the need for greater investment in bushfire preparedness. Let's also not forget the $4 billion emergency response fund that was set up under the coalition. At the time the $4 billion fund may have looked a good number on a media release, but sadly, three years after being established, the emergency response fund had not actually spent one single dollar on disaster mitigation projects.</para>
<para>In the Albanese government's first 12 months the government has paid out more than $2.7 billion in recovery and resilience programs and payments to support individuals and communities impacted by natural disasters, which of course include bushfires. This isn't just about the immediate effect of protecting Australian communities from natural disasters. It is also smart fiscal policy, because we know that every dollar spent on disaster risk reduction gives an estimated $9.60 return on our investment. This makes sense: mitigating disasters doesn't just save lives and property; it also reduces the size and cost of the recovery.</para>
<para>The government has also taken the significant step of creating one unified National Emergency Management Agency. Under the leadership of the Coordinator-General, we are also building the first ever national emergency stockpile to supplement state, territory and local resources of emergency housing, water, purification equipment and other necessities. In terms of immediate relief for communities impacted by bushfires, just last week the Minister for Emergency Management, Senator Watt, along with his Victorian state counterpart minister, Jaclyn Symes, announced the availability of funds to eight Victorian communities under the jointly funded Commonwealth-state disaster recovery funding arrangements. These funds enable councils to undertake a range of relief and recovery activities, such as the establishment and operation of relief centres. The support also provides funding for counter-disaster operations carried out by councils to make residential properties safe, and emergency works to urgently restore transport infrastructure and the reconstruction of essential public assets like roads, bridges and footpaths.</para>
<para>In terms of the specific technology referred to in the motion, the government invests $30.8 million every year in aerial firefighting. It has requested the National Aerial Firefighting Centre to undertake research on what is the best practice for the mix of aircraft and technology. It's also worth highlighting that there is no single system or capability that addresses fire detection or suppression. The states and territories have the primary responsibility for raising and maintaining capability for emergency management and fire response. The Australian government determines what is required to support the states and territories. So it's important that we listen to the experts on the ground and our partners in the state and territory governments on what technologies will be most effective for managing bushfires.</para>
<para>The use of remotely piloted aircrafts for emergency management is a rapidly evolving area, and an assessment has been undertaken of emerging technologies to support the application of remotely piloted aircrafts. This is another example of how the Albanese government is working with our state and territory partners to boost investment in disaster resilience. This is the collaborative approach that we will continue to take as we face difficult conditions this summer.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McD</name>
    <name.id>123072</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>ONALD () (): I rise because of this excellent motion that has been brought forward by Senator Pocock to address the very important issue of bushfires in this country. However, I want to speak with regard to the other parts of the country, the big, open parts of the country, particularly in northern Australia, where we are overlooking the very basic, commonsense approaches that are so important, like the rural fire brigades. The national highway to the Northern Territory has been cut several times due to bushfires just recently, and the threat of fires starting in national parks and spreading to grazing land and homes is very real.</para>
<para>In September this year, a bushfire came out of the Littleton National Park near Croydon in North Queensland and spread to an adjoining cattle property. It burned a 30,000-acre paddock, and, while a proper assessment is yet to be made, it's almost certain there would be a number of calves lost and a great deal of fencing and other repairs required. This is the second time in three years that this property has been lost to fire spreading from the national park, and that is because there is no firebreak. Worse is that, in June, National Parks were approached by a private citizen with an offer to bulldoze a firebreak along the park boundary, but this was denied because National Parks did not have a budget to provide. Furthermore, National Parks said they could only use their contracted machinery from Atherton, even though there was suitable machinery available locally. There is no common sense, no flexibility and no grasp on the reality of what will save lives and save ecosystems. Australia's horrific experience with bushfires means we should have more experience at vegetation management, but Labor is certainly asleep at the wheel. I can tell you that, in Queensland, the Queensland government's neglect is putting lives at risk.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>First Nations Australians</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Senate will now consider the proposal from Senator Nampijinpa Price:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The need for Prime Minister Albanese to support the Opposition's call for a Royal Commission into child sexual abuse in Indigenous communities, audit spending on Indigenous programs, and support practical policy ideas to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians to help Close the Gap."</para></quote>
<para>Is consideration of the proposal supported?</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</inline></para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE</name>
    <name.id>263528</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The need for Prime Minister Albanese to support the Opposition's call for a Royal Commission into child sexual abuse in Indigenous communities, audit spending on Indigenous programs, and support practical policy ideas to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians to help Close the Gap.</para></quote>
<para>I rise today to speak on the urgent need for Prime Minister Albanese and the Labor government to support the coalition's call for a royal commission into child sexual abuse in Indigenous communities, audit spending on Indigenous programs and support practical policy ideas to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians and to help close the gap.</para>
<para>Earlier this year, I had the privilege of being joined by the Leader of the Opposition, who has on several occasions travelled to spend real time on the ground in the Northern Territory and hear directly from remote and rural Australian communities. While in the Territory, in my home town of Alice Springs, the opposition leader heard stories of what too many people in remote and rural Australia know all too well—stories of child sexual abuse and stories of children being neglected and abused.</para>
<para>Stories of Indigenous Australians are being ignored because their problems and the solutions they are suggesting don’t fit this government's agenda. There are stories like that of my niece known as Ruby, as reported in the<inline font-style="italic">Australian</inline> in 2022. In the remote Northern Territory town of Yuendumu, Ruby, then just 15, was beaten and raped by her own father. Ruby recounts trying to tell her family in Yuendumu of the horrific abuse she was suffering but says they didn't want to believe her. Incredibly, Ruby found the courage to speak up, and two years later, at just 17 years old, she testified against him. A judge in the case said the abuse had been protracted and prolonged and involved the use of weapons.</para>
<para>I know of a case now being dealt with where, from the age of six, a girl was raped and abused by her cousin, a man 12 years older than her. For seven years this young girl was tortured, frightened and in need of help, with no-one to turn to because too many community and family members turned a blind eye. It was only after leaving her home and moving interstate with a family member that she was able to find an adult who would help her.</para>
<para>But helplessness extends to the hands of organisations funded supposedly to help. The ANAO has found that the Northern Land Council is not fully implementing its fraud and corruption policy and that the Central Land Council's fraud control arrangements fall short of the minimum requirements. As I've said many times before, the gap is more about place than about race. It exists not between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians but between the cities and remote Australia, between those who have easy access to education, medicines and emergency services and those who do not. We need to focus our efforts on our most marginalised.</para>
<para>Over the weekend, Australians sent a loud and clear message that they want real outcomes for Indigenous Australians, and particularly our most marginalised. They do not want more of the same. They don't want more bureaucracy; they don't want an activist talkfest. They want accountability, they want transparency and they want action. We need action for those children in remote communities, our most marginalised, suffering sexual abuse, neglect and other abuse. Labor, the Greens and Senator David Pocock have denied our attempts before and chosen to be silent and overlook these issues. This is the last time. Join us in what Australians overwhelmingly seek or we will do it ourselves and hold you all to account.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Of course child sexual assault is abhorrent, and everybody in this place would condemn it. I notice that the relevant organisation in this space in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, SNAICC, has said another royal commission, another inquiry, is not a solution. Like many of the interventions by those opposite, this is all about the politics and not about the solution. It's always about the politics, never about the solution. What is the content of this motion and the letter really about? It's really about an angry pursuit of the people who those opposite don't like and who didn't agree with them in the recent referendum.</para>
<para>Let me make the government's position on this referendum really clear. We accept the result of the referendum unequivocally—without equivocation. The Prime Minister made that very clear on Saturday evening. I understand that there are those opposite who are not interested in solutions but interested in the politics. They are interested in looking for an argument, not in looking for solutions. What we as a government will do is listen. We will listen carefully. We will, as I said, having accepted what happened over the course of the weekend, listen carefully and continue to proceed in a careful and deliberate way. We will listen carefully to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. There is a difference, of course, between the approaches. The Prime Minister of Australia said many, many times in the lead-up to the last election that we would hold a referendum on the request that was made to us in the Uluru statement. And do you know what the Prime Minister did? He held the referendum.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cox</name>
    <name.id>296215</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Everyone sat here and listened to Jacinta! How about some respect!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order at that end of the chamber! Senator Cox!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We advocated for the argument that we believed in the referendum and we did not prevail—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Hughes?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Hughes</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On a point of order, this is just not relevant. This has absolutely nothing to do with the question. The point of order is on the direct relevance of this contribution, which has nothing to do with the royal commission.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It is a wide-ranging debate, and interjections are disorderly. Senator Ayres, if you could wander back—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I am, of course, responding to the contribution before me, which dealt in substance with these issues. Of course, that's what the Prime Minister did. He did what he said he was going to do, and he advocated for what he believed in. What have we seen from the Leader of the Opposition? In the lead-up to the end of the referendum campaign, he said he wanted a second referendum. And then, in record-breaking time, he flipped over and said we won't have a referendum.</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Then, less than 24 hours later, he said we will have one. He changed his mind more quickly and more often than Kamahl. At least Kamahl is popular! What this Leader of the Opposition—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Hughes?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Hughes</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I raise a point of order on relevance. This has nothing to do with the royal commission—it's a wide berth. It's in a different state let alone suburb.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Green</name>
    <name.id>259819</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Read the motion!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Hughes</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Do you know what? We have read the motion.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Interjections—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Hughes</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's child sexual abuse, and you are turning it down. You are turning a blind eye to child sexual assault. You should be ashamed of yourself.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hughes, please! All interjections are disorderly. I would remind the chamber of that and that speakers should be heard in respectful silence.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We have the Leader of the Opposition—the angriest man in Australian politics and the most extreme leader of the Liberal and National parties in our history, always looking for an argument, never interested in solutions—all of a sudden saying he's interested in a common approach. You'd have to be forgiven for being cynical about what that is all about. Of course, all of the claims will be made and all of the politics played, but what this government will do is continue to listen. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COX</name>
    <name.id>296215</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This motion, which calls for a royal commission, has been moved, but it's not in good faith. As someone who's worked with, advocated for and supported victims-survivors, I know the unacceptable statistics for broader Australia but also for First Nations people. This week, the hypocritical attempt to talk up another royal commission into this issue will just be another segue into the intervention-type approach to demonise First Nations people in this country. It will never be framed to understand the real issues, which the opposition have already stated that they don't believe exist for our people, which goes against the plethora of research. It definitely won't focus on the prevalence of white people targeting our communities. It will not be framed in a way that's trauma informed. It won't talk about the systemic failures, most of which have been during the time of their successive governments. It will be dressed up to demonise our communities and our culture, which have sustained us for tens of thousands of years.</para>
<para>Our mob are hurting right now. And I know some people in this chamber don't care. But it's another attempt at their erasure politics—the lack of care, the lack of support and the lack of empathy.</para>
<para>Culture is definitely not the issue here. It is about poverty.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Hughes</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If you're poor, you can rape children? Really?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COX</name>
    <name.id>296215</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It is about lack of access to health care, trauma counselling and healing, education, overcrowding—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKim</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A point of order—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Order, please! Senator McKim?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKim</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Acting Deputy President, since Senator Cox rose to her feet to commence her contribution, there has been a wall of noise coming from Senator Price and Senator Hughes. It is most disrespectful. And, Chair, I remind you: you have just reminded the chamber that all interjections are disorderly. Would you please call them to order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator McKim, and I'll remind all senators that all interjections are disorderly. Senator Cox.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>296215</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>How many royal commissions and inquiries are sitting and collecting dust on the shelf? Let me enlighten you. There were four national inquiries between 1997 and 2012, and three of those were Senate community affairs committee inquiries. There were also 15 state-led inquiries between 1990 and 2016. The money that would be spent on a royal commission—because that's what's on show here, in another bloody audit—would have been better spent directly in those communities.</para>
<para>And what is at the core of this is unspeakable. The end goal for that side of the chamber is something completely different from what's written in this motion.</para>
<para>Now I want to read a statement that was given to me today, because those on that side of the chamber who are bringing this motion in here today didn't even go to the national frontline services for sexual assault in this country. And the statement reads: 'NASASV does not support any further inquiries and encourages funding to frontline sexual assault services, to support work in this area across Australia. NASASV does not believe any more inquiries will benefit people and committees. In fact, further inquiries would do more harm. Resources would be better directed to immediate action, including funding frontline sexual assault services. Inquiries will not add any further knowledge base to what we already know, and what we need right now is action.'</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LIDDLE</name>
    <name.id>300644</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The motion calls for a royal commission into child sexual abuse. It calls for an audit of programs that exist to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians. And it seeks to understand the PM's plan B for closing the gap, now that his Voice is no longer the answer.</para>
<para>Child sexual abuse is an uncomfortable subject that we must all get better at speaking about. To do anything else silences the victims and survivors and does nothing to protect those who might come after.</para>
<para>To quote directly from the 2007 <inline font-style="italic">Little </inline><inline font-style="italic">children are sacred</inline> report into Aboriginal child sexual abuse in the Northern Territory:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Sexual abuse of children is not restricted to those of Aboriginal descent, nor committed only by those of Aboriginal descent, nor to just the Northern Territory. The phenomenon knows no racial, age or gender borders. It is a national and international problem.</para></quote>
<para>Importantly though, the report goes on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The classic indicia of children likely to suffer neglect, abuse and/or sexual abuse are, unfortunately, particularly apparent in Aboriginal communities. Family dysfunctionality, as a catch-all phrase, reflects and encompasses problems of alcohol and drug abuse, poverty, housing shortages, unemployment and the like. All of these issues exist in many Aboriginal communities.</para></quote>
<para>I acknowledge they do not exist in all families, but we cannot be blind to the risk factors being greater and the silencing, unfortunately, louder.</para>
<para>And I don't forget that it was you, Labor, that ended the CDC. And you ended the alcohol restrictions without jumping in and having them reinstated quickly. The Greens want to talk about violence and dispossession in the context of a truth and justice commission, to facilitate healing and a way forward—at a cost of $250 million? No. I want to talk about the here and now—the uncomfortable, the difficult, the too-hard. That's my priority.</para>
<para>Just imagine if, instead, that level of funding was directed to families to keep their children safe—prevention; to identify at-risk behaviours—prevention; and so that victims and survivors are better supported—prevention. You know this is an issue. For example, in your own budget in 2023, there was a reference to $1.4 million over four years for increasing specialist services for children with harmful sexual behaviours in the Northern Territory. But the detail that informs that is lacking.</para>
<para>The 2007 <inline font-style="italic">Little children are sacred</inline> report asks that Aboriginal child sexual abuse in the Northern Territory be designated an issue of urgent national significance. I want to know, 16 years later: is $1.4 million a year enough? A royal commission would tell us that. As the shadow minister for child protection, it is clear from the conversations with the sector that it is past time to start talking about this. Giving unfettered voice to the stories of the sector and those impacted the most will make the difference.</para>
<para>The PM must surely see the need to agree to an audit of Commonwealth funded organisations because this is connected to that. Those delivering services and charged with improving lives must do better. But Labor has no ears for that, the Greens have no ears for that and nor does Senator David Pocock. By holding ministers, the bureaucracy, the agencies and service providers to account, we can make a difference to the lives of families, who can make a difference to their own lives because they have the tools, infrastructure and response to help them do that. That's where the rubber hits the road. That's where the greatest impact will be, and that's why there is no reason or excuse to wait.</para>
<para>In recent months we've called for inquiries into the billions of dollars of Commonwealth funding for the myriad organisations and agencies who provide services to communities. The Australian media was screaming examples of maladministration and possible corruption in organisations that service our most vulnerable. Labor, the Greens and Senator David Pocock said no. There are organisations in the service delivery ecosystem doing it right, but everyone needs to do it right together. An audit will show what is working, what we need to do more of or less of and what we need to stop doing. We need to put the children at the centre and leave ideology at the door.</para>
<para>So far this year 48 women have died, thought to be a consequence of family violence, and the collateral damage is almost always the children. Ideology must be exchanged for common sense. I refer to the Alice Springs women's shelter, where 95 per cent of the women who flee are Indigenous. Yet did they get a look at any of the funding for the so-called A Better, Safer Future for Central Australia plan? No, because they're not Aboriginal community controlled. We must be courageous, we must be uncomfortable and we must remain focused on outcomes for the children if we are to change their futures. Get real!</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GREEN</name>
    <name.id>259819</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on this motion this evening, and I do so while acknowledging that the call for a royal commission into child sexual abuse relates to really abhorrent behaviour. Nobody on this side of the chamber—or, I don't think, anyone at all in this chamber—would suggest that any type of child sexual abuse is okay or that any type of child sexual abuse is apologised for by any policy of any government, previous or otherwise. It's really important that we get that language right in here tonight because victims are listening, and I'm sure they would want to hear that everyone in this chamber thinks there should be steps taken to protect any child in any vulnerable position, including reporting to police when people become aware of issues and making sure there are systems in place to protect children. It is really clear that that is something that I think all senators would say is a good thing to do.</para>
<para>Key experts who have considered this call for a proposal, particularly the people who are dealing with child sexual abuse in Indigenous communities—those organisations have said they don't support a royal commission because they want to see more funding and more action right here and right now. I think it's important to put on the record what the government is doing, what action the government is taking and what funding the government is providing in this space. There is the National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse; it's a 10-year whole-of-nation framework to establish a coordinated and consistent approach to prevent and better respond to child sexual abuse in Australia in all settings, in all families, online and in all organisations. I just want to be clear that a diverse range of non-government stakeholders were consulted on the strategy, including victims and survivors of child sexual abuse and their advocates, and First Nations people. In the development of this strategy, advocates were spoken to and also members of the Indigenous community.</para>
<para>First Nations people, families and communities are a priority group under the national strategy. There are a number of measures under the national strategy specifically designed to support and empower First Nations people. They include two measures led by the NIAA currently, which is action that is happening right now, right on the ground, delivering trauma aware, healing informed and culturally appropriate resources to improve early disclosures and experiences, which is a very important step, and developing healing approaches in partnership with First Nations experts, which are in place and contemplate the specialist support service system for First Nations victims and survivors of child sexual abuse.</para>
<para>The national strategy is a broader, whole-of-community approach. I want to commend the steps taken by this government to put these plans in place. Of course the Keeping Our Kids Safe cultural safety National Principles for Child Safe Organisations resources are designed for this. It's really important that they reach out into Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.</para>
<para>The rest of this motion talks about closing the gap. I want to talk about that. What is insinuated in the motion is some sort of bipartisan approach. I think that would be great. Let's have a bipartisan approach to closing the gap. Let's have a bipartisan approach to funding housing in Indigenous communities. We know that housing is incredibly important in Indigenous communities. We know that on this side of the chamber we sought to fund $100 million of funding through the HAFF for repairs for Indigenous community housing. The previous government—I appreciate that there are people sitting on the other side of the chamber that weren't part of the previous government, but many of them were—they walked away from NPARIH. They refused to fund Indigenous housing. Our government is really committed to understanding the Closing The Gap targets. The things that lead to closing the gap are incredibly important, as are all the things we are talking about. That's why we're stepping through methodically and taking this work seriously.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to commend the leadership of Senator Price demonstrated during the referendum campaign and to speak in support of this matter of urgency. Labor dismantled the Northern Territory intervention made under John Howard in response to the appalling reports of rampant child sexual abuse coming out of the communities. But the abuse never stopped. Child sexual abuse continues to traumatise another generation of young Indigenous people in remote communities. These kids hit the streets every night because they're safer out there than at home, and they're getting into all sorts of trouble. If they are taken away, then they scream 'stolen generation'.</para>
<para>They deserve support. They deserve a safe home and a safe community. They deserve nothing less than a royal commission into how this abuse has been allowed to continue. I'm very pleased the coalition has adopted my call for a comprehensive audit into the Aboriginal industry gravy train. I have been calling for this audit since I was first elected in 1996. Around $1 trillion has been poured into Indigenous programs since the awful Whitlam era. These programs are designed and delivered mostly by Indigenous advocates and the many Indigenous corporations, land councils and charities. The gaps are not closing.</para>
<para>It hasn't been a total waste. The audit could also identify those few programs which have genuinely delivered better outcomes. I would welcome that with all my heart, because it would help deliver on the third element of this motion—practical policy ideas that really improve the lives of Australians living in disadvantage. I commend this motion to the Senate. If you really want changes, you really want to close the gaps, then have the audit. I have raised on the floor of parliament where there has been corruption and misappropriation of monies. I've named people; yet you sit back and do nothing about it. We need a royal commission into the Aboriginal industry.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thought I had heard it all in this place but today, in debate on this motion, both Labor and the Greens argued against supporting the opposition's call for a royal commission into child sex abuse in Indigenous communities, audit spending on Indigenous programs and support practical policy ideas to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians. I have now heard it all. Those opposite cannot support a royal commission into this most fundamentally important issue. Despite the Prime Minister saying, 'Oh yes, I've listened, I've learned and I accept responsibility,' clearly you have not. Over 60 per cent of Australians have clearly said your proposal for a top-down voice was not suitable. Clearly, we need a new approach. I could not believe my ears when Senator Cox stood up and basically said, 'No, she's alright; we don't need a royal commission into this.' I think that is outrageous.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Se</name>
    <name.id>296215</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I would ask Senator Reynolds to withdraw her comment. She is making another personal reflection, which is completely rejected.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cox has asked you to withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If it assists, I will withdraw and I will rephrase it—opposed a royal commission into child sexual abuse. The writers of <inline font-style="italic">Utopia</inline> would not have dreamed of something as obscene as the debate now occurring in this place. The great hypocrisy was Western Australian voters have seen through those opposite, because the great hypocrisy is, you are talking about a voice. Well, I tell you what. What is the point of having a voice if you do not listen?</para>
<para>For the last 12 months in Western Australia, we have had a conga line of local communities—you know this, Senator Cox—coming here and begging to retain the cashless debit card. These are local communities who wanted the card, who had positive results. They came here to the Prime Minister begging those opposite to keep this card and it fell on completely deaf ears. So the irony of you talking about a voice and then not listening when local community leaders come here is absolutely shameless and devastating for the local communities.</para>
<para>Let me remind you of the things that you refused to listen to and what leaders from our local communities have said.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKim, a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKim</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Reynolds is continually gesticulating and looking at this side of the chamber and using the word 'you'. I ask you to require that she direct her comments to you as the chair.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Reynolds, direct any comments through the chair, please. I don't think the use of hands is against the standing orders, but any comments should certainly be through the chair.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Even the ABC acknowledged why they were doing it. The ABC said, 'The now Labor government philosophically opposes compulsory income management in most circumstances.' There you go. Your philosophical left say, 'We don't agree with this.' Paternalism in action is alive and well and the name is Labor.</para>
<para>What did some of the local leaders from Western Australia say when they begged you to keep the card? 'Local leaders in East Kimberley say the removal of the card had coincided with a surge in alcohol-fuelled violence and antisocial behaviour. … Wyndham East Kimberley Shire president, David Menzel, said frontline workers and Indigenous agencies had raised concerns with him of about the abrupt change. "Disruption to people's way of life, quite a demand for food for kids. There have been increased sales in high-alcohol content drinks.'" What did the President of the Shire of Laverton say? He said, 'The lack of consultation is profound on the government's behalf and the words and the rhetoric do not bode well for the future of Laverton. As local governments do, we will pick up the pieces with other state government agencies. The CDC has brought sanity to people's lives. Most of the spending allocation is to purchase food and other essentials in life for women, children and the elderly.' Yet you did not listen. Big Brother—big paternalist brother, thy name is Labor and the Greens—knew better and didn't listen to local communities. What did Ian Trust, the director of the amazing Wunan Foundation in Kununurra, who knows about this firsthand, say? He said that the cashless debit card had reduced alcohol violence and the harassment of the elderly and vulnerable for cash when they go to the AGM. He said that it wasn't a silver bullet but it was something we could build on and something the local community in Kununurra wanted. So it goes on and on. Senator Nampijinpa Price knows only too well the consequences that your paternalism and your not listening to local communities have had for her community in Alice Springs and right across the Territory. So please never come and lecture us on any moral issue again, because the fact is that you are stopping a royal commission into child sex—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Reynolds.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the matter of urgency moved by Senator Nampijinpa Price be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [17:50]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>26</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Antic, A.</name>
                <name>Babet, R.</name>
                <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                <name>Cadell, R. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>31</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                <name>Cox, D.</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                <name>Lines, S.</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                <name>Polley, H.</name>
                <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                <name>White, L.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names />
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>PETITIONS</title>
        <page.no>61</page.no>
        <type>PETITIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Truro Bypass</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I table a fantastic non-conforming petition wanting investment in the Truro bypass, signed by over 1,200 South Australians. It was previously circulated and agreed by the whips.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>61</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Administrative Appeals Tribunal</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the document.</para></quote>
<para>I rise to take note of the annual report of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for the year ending 30 June 2023. We know that the Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, is hell-bent on introducing a new regime in relation to administrative law that, in my view, is not informed by the evidence. I've consistently referred to this in Senate estimates—putting the actual evidence with respect to the performance of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on the record—and today I seek to refer to the most recent annual report released by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which again indicates that the Attorney's attack on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is completely unjustified.</para>
<para>I'll refer to the key performance indicators, which are referred to on page 18 of the annual report of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, in relation to, firstly, 'Number of AAT applications and IAA referrals finalised'. I note that the performance indicator was met. The target for the number of finalised matters was 42,024. The result was 42,862 matters—performance indicator met. The next performance indicator is 'Clearance ratio of AAT finalisations and IAA decisions'. The performance indicator was a target of 100 per cent. That means the performance indicator was about clearing as many matters as were entering the system. What was the result? It was that 104 per cent were cleared—key performance indicator exceeded.</para>
<para>No. 3 is 'Proportion of AAT applications and IAA referrals finalised within a time standard'. The target was 75 per cent. The result was 61 per cent. That indicator was not met, but the result was better than the previous year, in which it was 60 per cent. No. 4 is 'Number of AAT and IAA decisions published'. The target was at least 5,000. The number published was 5,032—met. Item No. 5 is 'AAT user experience rating'. This is extraordinarily important because many of the applicants before the AAT are self-acting and this is basically a census, a survey, of the perception of the people actually engaging in the system through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. So this is one of the most important indicators. It's also a survey with respect to the legal representatives of those persons who are being represented through the AAT system. So what is that performance indicator telling us? The target was at least 70 per cent satisfaction rate. The result was 72 per cent satisfaction rate—KPI met.</para>
<para>Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, is 'Proportion of appeals against AAT and IAA decisions allowed by the courts'. This is an extremely important indicator because, if the AAT were not working, many of the decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal would be overturned by the Federal Court. But what are we seeing? The target was less than five per cent of decisions being overturned on appeal. The actual result was 2.1 per cent—definitely under target. So that KPI has been met.</para>
<para>So, when we look globally at the performance of the AAT—notwithstanding the diatribe which the Attorney launched against the AAT last year—and when we actually look at the evidence, it does not support the Attorney-General's attack on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The evidence does not support the Attorney's position with respect to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and that is in a context where the membership of the AAT was extremely low. So they actually produced those results with low membership within the AAT—in terms of the numbers of members. So that's an outstanding result for the AAT for the year ending 30 June 2023.</para>
<para>We are left to reflect on why it is that the Attorney has launched a so-called reform of an institution in our Commonwealth system of government which is actually working, as proven by the evidence. We're going to go through all the cost, all the disruption and all the delay that is going to be occasioned by introducing a new administrative law system in this country, and it simply is not justified by the evidence. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.</para>
<para>Leave granted; debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Consideration</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>62</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>62</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the 499th report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Public Works Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>62</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the seventh report of 2023 of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Commonwealth Bilateral Air Service Agreements Select Committee</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>62</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the report.</para></quote>
<para>This is the first report of the Commonwealth Bilateral Air Service Agreements Select Committee. This Senate inquiry didn't have to happen. If the Anthony Albanese Labor government had been upfront and explained to the Australian public why it chose to block Qatar Airways's application for more flights and why it decided to put the interests of Qantas above the interests of everyday Australian travellers, this inquiry would never have had to happen. Indeed, this government—and this Prime Minister in particular—chose to look after their corporate crony mates, particularly former CEO Mr Joyce, and, more generally, the Qantas Group.</para>
<para>As the inquiry disclosed, as the ACCC has found and as the High Court has made clear, Qantas's corporate behaviour has been appalling. Our once-beloved national carrier has been despicable to its loyal customers, has flagrantly pursued and sacked its staff—illegally it has been found—and has sought to pocket nearly $½ billion of its own customers' COVID flight credits. On any measure, Australians are frustrated by the behaviour of the Qantas Group, and that came flowing out during this inquiry. The inquiry heard from over 140 submitters. Over 100 everyday Australians put pen to paper or keyboard to email to vent their frustrations and disappointment in a once-loved national carrier.</para>
<para>Rather than be upfront and honest, this government gave nine different and sometimes contradictory reasons for why it restricted competition and protected one airline's dominant market share over others and kept prices high. Ironically, this committee captured all but the built-up frustrations and traumas of families who lived through the COVID epidemic, when they were unable to fly to reach their loved ones they had been separated from, and who had literally been ripped off by a company that they thought had their nation's back. Qantas loves to trot out the 'national carrier' adjective, but when the chips were down Qantas was nowhere to be found. Frequent flyer points were debased, COVID flight credits could never be used, precious baggage was lost, and flights were delayed and cancelled, not to mention the behaviour of the Qantas board and management towards its loyal and professional staff while rewarding its departing CEO with an eye-watering golden parachute whilst he oversaw the trashing of this once-great Australian company's reputation. This inquiry became a lightning rod for all of these frustrations.</para>
<para>Nothing more epitomised the out-of-touch arrogance of this corporate than the evidence of Qantas's own Mr Finch—a man on millions of dollars. He claimed and complained to the senators that he was concerned about being delayed for a flight out of Canberra Airport. This guy earns enough that he could actually have chartered his own plane from Qantas to get home to Sydney that night. I can confirm that they made their flight. The flight was held, and Ms Hudson made it. But that's not so for tens of thousands of frustrated Australians who have had to hear those horrible words: 'Your flight's been delayed,' or, 'Your flight's been cancelled. We've bumped you to the next one. We'll put you up in a hotel.' You've got three screaming kids and you have to buy new baggage. The arrogance of Mr Finch, honestly, beggared belief and, I think, touched a nerve, shall we say, among the broader Australian public.</para>
<para>Yet the Albanese government, at every juncture, chose to side with Qantas rather than with the Australian travelling public. They chose to continue their protection racket for Qantas, the flag bearer of their now failed 'yes' campaign, gagging public servants, ignoring the advice of eminent ACCC commissioners, past and present, and ignoring the tourism industry, aviation experts, academics and other airlines. They're still doing this tonight, in the midst of the unfolding crisis in the Middle East, where Australians who are trapped in that war zone are hoping to catch mercy repatriation flights out of Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv back to their loved ones in Australia. They're not telling Australians that one of the airlines that offered to help repatriate Australians who are trying to get out of Israel safely and securely was Qatar Airways, which also helped Australians out of Kabul and which also helped Australians get home during COVID. The government haven't mentioned its name because they're still running a protection racket for Qantas.</para>
<para>The Albanese government are tone deaf to the issues affecting everyday Australians. While the government has been solely focused on campaigning on the divisive referendum, the Australian public are simply trying to make ends meet. On 10 July the government blocked the application from Qatar Airways that would have meant the cost of getting from Australia to Europe through the Middle East was lower and you had more choice of destinations.</para>
<para>This Qantas inquiry should never have been needed, but it became beholden on the opposition to find out exactly what had happened, in whose interests the decision was made, who influenced the decision and what, if anything, was negotiated in return for this decision, which solidified and protected Qantas, with its dominant market share in our aviation industry—and particularly after its appalling corporate behaviour. We tried asking questions at question time. We tried seeking the production of documents, and I thank crossbench senators and the Greens for joining with the coalition in trying to get documents out of the government. Did we get anything? No. So, in a last-ditch effort, we put up an inquiry. I will be forever grateful to the crossbench senators who allowed this inquiry to be held.</para>
<para>While the government will trash this inquiry and its report as a political stunt, I would urge anyone who has an interest in this sector to read the report. The evidence, as I said, was overwhelming. Qantas is the only submitter who doesn't want the ACCC's monitoring of cancellations and delays in the aviation industry, which shows that Qantas delays and cancels flights out of Sydney more than any other airline, despite having the same number of Airservices Australia staff and despite being subjected to the same weather concerns. It is incredible. It is the ACCC report that actually makes that clear. They don't want it, so the government hasn't done it. The only submitter that doesn't want this decision to be reviewed or the reasons to be made public and transparent is Qantas. It is the only one among the academics, competition experts and the like. We heard from Peter Harris, a former chair of the Productivity Commission and a very intelligent and incisive person, who conducted a review into the slots going in and out of Sydney airport. That review is sitting on the minister's desk right now. She could make the decision right now, based on evidence that's been consulted on, to change the outcome and the cancellations and delays in and out of Sydney.</para>
<para>All the crumbs of evidence as to why this decision was made, why the minister didn't take her department's advice to approve the negotiating mandate, lead back to three people: Prime Minister Albanese, Minister King and Mr Alan Joyce. That is why this committee has asked that, when Mr Joyce does return from overseas, he be called before a reconstituted committee to answer the serious and substantial questions that committee members have for him. He hasn't been up-front. He's been afforded largesse at the expense of staff, shareholders and customers, and he needs to face the music.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to take note of the report of the Select Committee on Commonwealth Bilateral Air Service Agreements. We all know that Senate committees do extremely important work. I'm sure everyone in this place feels proud of the work they've done through the committee process, whether it's reviewing legislation or investigating important policy issues. Given all the vital, important work that the Senate does, it is unfortunate when Senate resources are tied up in political stunts like this inquiry. At a time when there are many important issues we could be looking into, we've instead been required to participate in this circus.</para>
<para>This inquiry was a circus where the chair of the committee refused to provide programs to government senators in advance of hearings, making it impossible to adequately prepare. It was a circus where the chair was making public announcements about committee decisions often before the decisions had even been agreed to, a circus where all the conventions for how committees should operate were thrown into the bin, a circus where we had to endure lengthy lines of questioning from those opposite that had absolutely nothing to do with the terms of reference and, in some cases, had absolutely nothing to do with the aviation industry. At one point, there was at least half an hour of questioning about the Voice to Parliament and Yes23 decals on Qantas planes. There was even the absolutely ridiculous suggestion that there was a link between the 'yes' campaign and our bilateral air service agreement decision.</para>
<para>This inquiry about bilateral air service agreements has been weaponised as yet another disinformation campaign against the Voice. It's not only a complete waste of all our time; it undermines and erodes faith in democracy in this country when such ridiculous accusations are made. It's particularly frustrating when the aviation industry actually does face many challenges that deserve proper and serious consideration, and I'll touch on those shortly. It's also very clear that this committee is not an appropriate vehicle for a serious investigation of anything. The suggestion that this committee should be given even more time and resources to run a disinformation campaign about the Voice is, frankly, obscene.</para>
<para>As Senator White and I noted in our dissenting report, this inquiry did not reveal a single piece of information that was not already on the public record—not a single piece. It did not reveal a single piece of evidence proving that Qantas has influence over the current government. In fact, the only evidence about Qantas's influence over government decision-making pertained to the previous government and the previous minister for transport, Michael McCormack. As the committee heard, Brisbane Airport was informed back in April 2018 that Qatar Airways was going to be given additional access to these markets and then, a week later, without warning and without explanation, there was a complete backflip on that decision. From what we can tell, the only relevant event that happened in the course of that week was that Mr McCormack hired a Qantas executive as his chief of staff, after which he suddenly had a change of heart about Qatar Airways market access. Of course, all of this was already on the public record. It was reported in the <inline font-style="italic">Courier</inline><inline font-style="italic">-</inline><inline font-style="italic">Mail</inline> five years ago. We didn't need to have a Senate inquiry to find that out either; we just needed internet access.</para>
<para>For many years, it has well and truly been a matter of public record that the Liberals and Nationals are captured by Qantas. I was there when Ansett collapsed and the Howard government sat on its hands and let it happen, to the great benefit of Qantas. I was there when Alan Joyce became Qantas CEO and the first thing he did was begin setting up labour hire companies to undercut longstanding workplace agreements, all with the explicit support of the Liberals and Nationals. I was there when Alan Joyce grounded the entire Qantas fleet in 2011 because some of the workers were wearing the wrong colour of tie as a form of industrial action, and again the Liberals and Nationals supported Joyce the whole way. I was there when Alan Joyce successfully lobbied the Morrison government to let Virgin collapse during the pandemic while they gave Qantas $2.7 billion with no obligation. And I was there when Alan Joyce illegally sacked 1,700 people.</para>
<para>This government intervened in that case on behalf of those workers. That's what the previous government wouldn't do. Minister McCormack said illegally sacking 1,700 people was 'in the best interests of the company going forward'. Christian Porter said illegally sacking 1,700 people was 'a good model'. Senator Cash said of the illegal sacking of 1,700 people. 'Qantas are entitled to make those decisions.' Either those three ministers had been improperly influenced by Qantas or they genuinely supported Alan Joyce destroying the lives of thousands of people. Which one is it?</para>
<para>As we speak, the Liberals and Nationals are standing hand in hand with Qantas to try to stop us from closing Alan Joyce's labour hire loophole, the loophole he created to split the Qantas workforce across 38 different companies to divide them and tear them apart. The Liberals and Nationals could stand with aviation workers and support closing the loophole, but no. They're standing with Alan Joyce, Richard Goyder and the Qantas board. There is decades of evidence of the Liberals and Nationals standing hand in hand with Qantas and particularly with Alan Joyce as he destroyed the airline. The Liberals and Nationals never cared for a second about what happened to those workers. They're happy for Alan Joyce to ruin the lives and livelihoods of thousands of Qantas workers and their families, but putting a 'yes' sticker on a plane is where they draw the line. My God!</para>
<para>That brings me back to the fact that those opposite have never demonstrated they care about our aviation industry. For nine years they took absolutely no steps to act on the issues that clearly exist within the sector. Upon coming to government, Minister King quickly established the green paper and white paper process so that we can have a thoughtful and considered approach to resolving these issues. There has been wide and extensive consultation through that process. Unlike the sham inquiry pursued by this committee, the white paper process can solve important problems—problems like the systematic destruction of the aviation workforce, the lack of consumer rights under the previous government's watch, and protections against anticompetitive behaviour, cancellations and gouging. These are real problems and they deserve real solutions, not political stunts.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There are two very dry words in Australian politics at the moment. One is the word 'productivity', and the other word is 'competition'. I will talk about productivity reforms and why they're so necessary for our economy at another time, but front and centre for many, many Australians now is the unreasonableness, high cost and unreliability of service from the Australian airline industry in delivering important aviation needs to Australian consumers.</para>
<para>I think that, for a long time in Australia, aviation, travel and the connectivity that they deliver have been regarded as luxury items, but, if there's a learning from the COVID experience, it is that aviation has become much more of an essential service for Australians than a luxury good. It is an essential service because we know that increasingly Australians want to be able to travel to stay connected to their families in good times, like Christmas and birthday celebrations, but also in times of tragedy or unforeseen and unfortunate circumstances. That's particularly true of the increasing number of multicultural communities in our country, who don't just want to stay connected to their communities here in Australia but are particularly keen and interested, out of necessity, to stay connected with their families and communities abroad.</para>
<para>It's clear, from the report that Senator McKenzie has delivered to the Senate this afternoon, that competition in the Australian aviation sector needs urgent and immediate reform. It's very curious, in fact, that the government has decided to establish a competition review process, which I've got to say is very unstructured. It doesn't haven't the discipline of priorities, nor does it have the discipline of publicly stated time frames. It's a competition review process that consciously, at the beginning, ignored the importance of aviation issues. There's been a hastily-convened backflip on behalf of the Treasurer, Dr Chalmers, and the government's competition minister, Dr Leigh. They have belatedly decided to include aviation issues in that competition review, but they've not committed to make them a priority of the review's inquiry process, nor established a time line with regard to how and when those aviation considerations will be contemplated by the competition review mechanism. Instead, they're saying, 'Oh, no, we've got a green and white paper process,' which will put these important issues out on the never-never.</para>
<para>I predict with great confidence that we will not see one competition initiative presented to this parliament before the next election—not one. That's despite the COVID experience and everything that it taught us about the importance of aviation in our country, from a business and freight perspective but also from a social perspective, and despite the fact that we have the government's decision—which is friendless—with regard to greater access to an airline like Qatar. Despite all of that, we will not see one positive competition reform initiative brought to this parliament before the next election through the competition review process. That is the government being blind and deaf to the needs of Australian consumers. In the last day or so, as a result of the weekend's very decisive rejection by Australians of the government's key constitutional priority, the government has been quickly trying to make up for lost time. It's frantically now focusing on cost-of-living issues, but it's continuing to ignore the desperate need this country has for significant improvements in aviation competition.</para>
<para>There's one particular initiative the government could take immediately. It doesn't need a review process. It doesn't need legislative reform. The one initiative they could take immediately would be to reinstate the ACCC monitoring regime for the airline industry. The 13th and final report of that regime was released in June. Every single stakeholder that presented to Senator McKenzie's committee of inquiry—other airlines, airport operators, the travel industry—said that the government should reinstate the ACCC monitoring regime, because it was good for the industry, good for transparency and good for scrutiny. What is the one organisation that continues to resist the reinstatement of that ACCC monitoring regime? Guess. It starts with Q, followed by a-n-t-a-s. Qantas is the only organisation in this whole country that does not want that ACCC monitoring regime introduced. And guess who is listening to Qantas. It's the government. Indeed, at the committee inquiry, the Qantas CEO said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We don't support a continuation of that review, because the findings were not significant.</para></quote>
<para>That was the view the new Qantas CEO had, when in actual fact the report made numerous findings in regard to competition, consumer protections, poor flight regularity and poor service for customers. The Qantas CEO is the head of the only organisation in this whole country, other than the government, that doesn't want to see the ACCC monitoring regime reintroduced. How remarkable! And government senators have the gall to stand up here and argue that Qantas is not abusing its monopoly position in the Australian aviation market by standing over the government, standing over Dr Chalmers, standing over Assistant Minister Leigh and saying, 'We don't want that report, that monitoring regime, reinstated.' What a simple, easy, relatively inexpensive opportunity in the context of the government's huge expenditure! Nothing—it would cost the government nothing, relatively, to reintroduce that and give the industry greater transparency, greater scrutiny and reassure Australian aviation customers that they were not being ripped off, because, if you're an Australian aviation consumer at the moment, your starting position should absolutely be, 'I'm getting lower levels of standards, I'm getting poor reliability and I'm probably being ripped off.' And for someone like myself, who comes from Western Australia, who has to travel across the continent regularly—I do so willingly—and as someone who travels around Western Australia—which I do willingly—I know and I hear about the poor aviation experiences my constituents keep telling me about.</para>
<para>There's another issue in the report, which was canvassed in the inquiry, that has received less attention. I readily accept that it's probably not widely endorsed by many people in our country just yet, but that is the restrictive practice that air cabotage plays on denying a better economic development story and better economic development opportunities for northern Australia. I do not believe, and I don't think anyone in this country believes, there should be wholesale lifting of those restrictions. But I do believe, and I hope that others in this chamber do believe, there's an opportunity to review some routes and look at some opportunities where we can provide greater access to regional Australians living across the north of our continent with better access to freight and better access to passenger flights. There's a real opportunity here, and I think the answer is in giving greater access to low-cost carriers—not the big multinational sovereign-backed carriers but smaller low-cost carriers—to travel into our country to pick up and drop off aviation customers in Kununurra and Derby and Broome and other places across northern Queensland that Senator McDonald will be more familiar with than I.</para>
<para>So, this is a necessary report. I think it has done great work. I compliment Senator McKenzie and Senator Birmingham for their great effort in this. I'm disappointed that Senator Sheldon and others haven't seen the real opportunity for significant improvements in aviation services in our country that this report presents. I hope that others will give it due consideration over coming days. I encourage the government to reinstate the ACCC monitoring report. I seek leave to continue my remarks.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As no other honourable senator wishes to take note of the report, I give the call to the minister.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>66</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Snowy Hydro 2.0, Department of Defence</title>
          <page.no>66</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>66</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I table documents relating to orders for production of documents concerning the Snowy Hydro 2.0 project and special-purpose aircraft flight invoices.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Annual Statement to Parliament on Northern Australia</title>
          <page.no>66</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Tabling</title>
            <page.no>66</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I, on behalf of the Minister for Northern Australia, Ms King, table the <inline font-style="italic">Annual statement </inline><inline font-style="italic">to parliament on </inline><inline font-style="italic">n</inline><inline font-style="italic">orthern Australia</inline>.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McDONALD</name>
    <name.id>123072</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the document.</para></quote>
<para>Northern Australia is the powerhouse of this country. It has pioneered and drives our most important industries, including agriculture, mining, tourism and defence. These industries have created prosperity for individuals, for families, for companies and for Australia as a nation. They also feed us, employ us and protect us. None of us should ever take northern Australia for granted or underestimate its contribution to the Australian standard of living.</para>
<para>Until Australians started feeling the shocks of an ever-increasing cost of living under the Albanese Labor government, we ranked equal fourth for the highest standard of living in the world. A strong economy, quality of life, education and health care are the main factors that contribute to this global ranking. The northern economy is the foundation of these pillars, largely through the billions of dollars from resources royalties and company taxes that fund the construction of new schools, hospitals and infrastructure throughout our communities. If you have a good hospital, school and roads where you live, then you can most likely thank northern Australia.</para>
<para>Anybody who has spent time in northern Australia can smell the syrupy thickness of opportunity and resourcefulness in the air while at the same time marvel at the ingenuity, resilience and courage of the very few who have created a living and lifestyle there. Northern Australia is vast. Its size and remoteness are almost unimaginable to those who live in our cosmopolitan capital cities and bustling regional towns. In Queensland you can drive 600 kilometres from Richmond to Normanton and not see a house except for a few in the one town along the track, which is Julia Creek, which has a population of 500. Northern Australia makes up 53 per cent of our landmass, and only five per cent of us live there.</para>
<para>In agriculture, northern Australia produces 12.5 million beef cattle, which is 64 per cent of the national beef herd. Over generations of backbreaking work in tropical heat, torrential rain and annual cyclones, northern cane producers produce more than 95 per cent of our sugar, and fruit farmers grow 94 per cent of our bananas and 93 per cent of our mangoes.</para>
<para>Every Australian state and territory except for the ACT produces minerals. Try to imagine the $500 billion resources sector without Western Australia, Queensland, the Northern Territory and the great regions of the Pilbara, Bowen Basin and Groote Eylandt. Northern Australia produces the critical minerals that the entire world demands and is crucial to Australia's defence. We have an extensive geological catalogue of critical minerals, with growing potential for other minerals which are yet to be declared critical.</para>
<para>Northern Australia attracts international tourists as well as domestic travellers to its spectacular destinations, with almost a million visitors to the Kakadu National Park, Uluru and the iconic Kimberley region each year, whilst the Great Barrier Reef tourism industry contributes $5.7 billion to the national economy each year.</para>
<para>This all forms the narrative around the strategic geography of northern Australia. This northern frontier is the front line in protecting and defending our nation. Northern Australia is our national border and checkpoint for biosecurity, food security and defence security. The key industries of agriculture, mining, tourism and defence in northern Australia deserve attention and investment, because any positive or negative impacts flow downstream to affect the entire country.</para>
<para>Coalition governments have always prioritised the strategic geography and potential of northern Australia. A coalition government released the white paper <inline font-style="italic">Our </inline><inline font-style="italic">north, our future</inline><inline font-style="italic">: white paper on developing n</inline><inline font-style="italic">orthern Australia</inline> in 2015. A coalition government established and then expanded the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. It was a coalition government that established the Cooperative Research Centre for Developing Northern Australia. These initiatives alone have improved the landscape of northern Australia, but we must continue to grow both opportunity and population in the north. The purpose of the white paper was to stocktake northern Australia's natural, geographic and strategic assets to create a launch pad to further develop the region's minerals, agriculture, tourism and defence industries and to mitigate impediments to growth.</para>
<para>The white paper also highlighted the necessity of infrastructure in the north. It was a development blueprint for nation-building projects, new roads, new dams, upgraded airstrips and freight transport options. The coalition established the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility in 2016. We announced in 2022 that the NAIF appropriation would increase from $5 billion to $7 billion to support continued private investment in economic development and population growth across the north. The Office of Northern Australia, established to implement the northern Australia agenda as identified in the white paper, has been absorbed into the department of infrastructure and we fear its independence of advocacy will disappear into the depths of the Canberra bureaucratic bubble. The Cooperative Research Centre for Northern Australia, another core element for progressing the northern Australia agenda, is committed to research for long-term, sustainable economic development. The CRC has initiated 96 cutting-edge projects to grow opportunity and prosperity in the north. This is a 10-year program which runs its course in 2026, but what is the Albanese Labor government doing to extend the invaluable CRCNA's work?</para>
<para>Coalition governments give the north a voice by listening to what it wants and understanding what it needs. Another coalition commitment was the master plan to accelerate regions of growth. The master plans are designed to deliver a 20-year blueprint for economic development, with the first regions of growth being Beetaloo Basin to Katherine to Darwin, Mount Isa to Townsville, Broome to Kununurra, and Cairns to Gladstone. How is the Albanese Labor government progressing these corridors of growth and economic development? Yes, we hear silence. It would seem that the Albanese Labor government does not value northern Australia with the same fierce pride and confidence that the coalition does, as it has ripped away crucial funding for the north at each of its federal budgets.</para>
<para>Infrastructure funding for Northern Australia has been scrapped, including the Building Better Regions Fund, as well as vital water security projects such as the Hells Gate dam and Urannah dam, with uncertainty hanging over the Hughenden offstream water storage project and the Cairns water security project.</para>
<para>If the Prime Minister or any minister took the time to drive around northern Australia, rather than FIFO-ing in, they would immediately see that, as resilient and resourceful as it is, this part of the country too, needs safe roads, capable bridges and water security. Picture a single-lane, unmarked, dirt-edged national highway just north of Sydney, like the one just west of the Great Barrier Reef tourism region. Picture Geelong, cut off from the rest of the country for five months each year, as Doomadgee Aboriginal Shire Council is during the wet season. Picture mealtime without the northern Australia beef herd and crops of sugar, bananas and mangos because there is no guaranteed water supply.</para>
<para>If Australia is to maintain its OECD standard of living, if Australians are to continue enjoying new schools, new hospitals and new roads, if Australians are to retain high levels of employment and remain safe upon their shores then it is imperative that the government commits to the continued development of northern Australia. Australia has always been a wealthy country by world standards and, consequently, there is an expectation of a comfortable standard of living, adequate food, water and housing. But this long-held expectation is now a luxury to many Australians, as weekly rent, mortgage repayments, electricity, petrol, insurance and grocery bills surge beyond our ability to pay and stay afloat. As Peter Dutton said in his budget reply speech this year, very few Australians can say they are better off today than they were when Labor was elected.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind the senator to address members in the other chamber by their full titles.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McDONALD</name>
    <name.id>123072</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you very much. When governments withdraw support to northern Australia and the capacity for the north to continue the economic lifting for the rest of the country, every single Australian can expect the cost of living to soar even further. Each additional impost and opportunity removed from the north drives up prices for everybody, whether they live in Darwin or Hobart. It used to be said that we rode on the sheep's back, alluding to wool being the source of Australia's prosperity. Now it is mining, agriculture and tourism. It is correct to say that we ride the northern Australian wave, because, when northern Australia prospers, the whole nation prospers and every Australian is better off. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.</para>
<para>Leave granted; debate adjourned.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>68</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee</title>
          <page.no>68</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference</title>
            <page.no>68</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That, noting that a fully empowered Royal Commission with appropriate terms of reference is necessary to learn from the unprecedented government response to COVID-19, the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References committee for inquiry and report by 31 March 2024:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The appropriate terms of reference for a COVID-19 Royal Commission that would allow all affected stakeholders to be heard.</para></quote>
<para>As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I speak in favour of this motion. One Nation's motion seeks to arrive at a fair terms of reference for a royal commission into the Commonwealth response to SARS-CoV-2. Those terms of reference could alternatively inform a Senate select committee of inquiry.</para>
<para>COVID resulted in the largest health response in Australian history. I put this motion forward as an invitation to all senators in this place, from all parties. Every single senator has heard from a stakeholder that the COVID response affected. This inquiry would ensure that none of those voices are missed by future terms of reference for a COVID royal commission. To be clear, the inquiry this motion seeks would not pass judgement on the COVID response. Its scope is simply to hear submissions from stakeholders to ensure that a future royal commission has properly informed terms of reference so that stakeholders will have an opportunity to have a say at such a commission.</para>
<para>Death, injury and suffering have been caused not just from the virus but from our response to the virus. Only a royal commission will sort out how much harm the virus did and how much harm we did to ourselves—and there was a hell of a lot of harm. Firstly, this harm was caused through the use of politicised fear. COVID has taken an unknown number of lives during the four years the virus has been present in Australia. I say 'unknown' because the number of people who actually died from COVID as opposed to dying with COVID is unknown. Knowingly increasing the death count to dial up the fear simply to ensure compliance with health directives appears to have been deliberate government policy at state and federal level. We treated people as though they were not human beings—rather, a problem to be managed.</para>
<para>Government did not manage the virus. Government managed us. They controlled us, the people. An inquiry must go back and look at what we knew about the risk to human life at each stage of our response and compare that risk to the benefit achieved from the Commonwealth response to that risk. From that process, we can create rules to guide our response to the next such event—fairer rules that dignify and sanctify human life. The anguish we felt was not just fear of the virus; it was fear of the governments. The public never knew what the governments were going to do next, let alone why. There was no excuse for that.</para>
<para>If we do actually have a handbook to be followed in a case like this, it's called the Australian Health Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza. This document was last updated in August 2019, just before COVID, and was produced as a result of consultation with the states and territories. What happened to this? Let's see what's in it:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Health Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza (AHMPPI), the national government health sector pandemic influenza plan, outlines the agreed arrangements between the Australian Government and State and Territory Governments for the management of an influenza pandemic. To support an integrated and coordinated response …</para></quote>
<para>I would have thought that that seems to fit the bill exactly. In 2009 the Australian Health Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza was used to guide Australia's response to H1N1 flu—swine flu.</para>
<para>Next I'll quote this from that document:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The key factors in this plan's approach include:</para></quote>
<list>The use of existing systems and governance mechanisms as the basis of the response …</list>
<para>There is no national cabinet, no secret decisions and no new body—with no rules or structure—that uses secret data that the public still cannot see. I'm starting to see why the government put this in the bin. I quote again:</para>
<list>incorporation of an analysis of risks and benefits—</list>
<para>Oh wait; there it is, a risk-benefit analysis; what a marvellous idea—</para>
<quote><para class="block">… to support evidence-based decision making …</para></quote>
<para>Evidence based decision-making—wouldn't that have been nice these last four years? We had this rule book in 2019, developed over many years of successes and failures, which clearly arrived at the right way to handle COVID. Why didn't we use it? Now, that is a question for a royal commission.</para>
<para>Secondly, harm was created as a result of making decisions on the optics, not the data, in direct contravention of the government's own handbook. From page 11, under 'Proportionate response':</para>
<quote><para class="block">In the past all pandemic planning was aimed at responding to a worst case scenario, similar to the influenza pandemic of 1918-19. The 2009 pandemic showed clearly the need for the flexibility to scale the response to be proportionate to the risk associated with the current disease.</para></quote>
<para>Our response was supposed to be set to the actual harm that was occurring, not the fears around the worst-case scenario, which, as it turned out, never occurred. Around the middle of 2020, it should have been clear to our health officials and to this parliament, as it was to me, that the scary videos of COVID deaths coming out of China were not representative of the strain of COVID active in Australia at the time or, for that matter, anywhere else in the world. Even worse, information came out at the time suggesting those videos were possibly faked, a suspicion confirmed in 2022, when some of the producers of the videos posted behind-the-scenes videos and photos of their work to social media. And yet this is what we set our response to—the fear, not the reality.</para>
<para>No attempt appears to have been made to determine just how dangerous Australian COVID really was. That was another of many direct contraventions of the rule book. Instead, the government leveraged dodgy Chinese videos to ramp up the fear. When that didn't convince the public, the states started making their own fake propaganda videos, portraying the worst-case scenario, here in this country, something they had agreed not to do the year before. When people took to the streets to protest the measures being taken, the government responded with yet more fear. Then came the military and the police. We have all seen those videos of elderly Australians being tasered, shoved to the floor, knocked out, and a pregnant mother arrested in her own home for sharing information about a protest. We have seen protesters being shot with rubber bullets and hunted down in parks, and the Premier gloating. Each of these measures was designed to add to the fear and anguish, to keep the population scared and compliant, with measures that contradicted the government's own rule book. No wonder the government is exempting itself and the mainstream media from its own misinformation and disinformation bill. Using any measure, the COVID fear campaign would have been struck down under that legislation and the government left to argue their case based on data, as the government were required to do but they didn't.</para>
<para>Thirdly, harm was caused economically—severe harm, right across the country. The Commonwealth COVID response was the most expensive federal government line item since World War II. Taxpayers have been left with a bill in excess of $600 billion, a bill that keeps going up with every interest payment on the money we borrowed to pay for our response. Not all the money was borrowed, though. The Reserve Bank printed a large amount, or, as the Reserve Bank prefers to say in answer to questioning from me, it created money out of thin air using an electronic journal entry. That money printing is a direct cause of the inflation and cost-of-living crisis Australia now faces. Lives were destroyed as a result of our economic mismanagement during COVID. Businesses were closed. Personal wealth was taken from everyday Australians and handed to the predatory billionaires who were behind every COVID curtain. Worldwide, $4 trillion has been redistributed from everyday citizens to predatory billionaires, and this figure continues to rise.</para>
<para>Fourthly, marriages and families were destroyed. Children had stability, love and support taken away from them. Elderly people were left alone to die. All the while, troops were on the streets enforcing lockdowns that were unprecedented in the history of our beautiful country, as part of an international American, British, Canadian, Australian COVID defence countermeasures consortium. A royal commission must determine if the cruelty was justified. An inquiry must look at the medical decisions taken. It will not be easy to peel back the layers of medical disinformation coming from university academics and research scientists that have a track record of saying whatever they are paid to say. There were so many alternatives to the pharmaceutical response our secretive National Cabinet decided upon. Why were these banned, ignored or ridiculed? What went on behind this veil of secrecy to pursue untested, fake vaccines above all else and the secrecy around big pharma's unproven antivirals like remdesivir, or, as it's known after killing many people here and overseas, 'Run, death is near'.</para>
<para>Turning to the injections themselves, I don't call these injectables vaccines because they do not comply with the definition of vaccine in use before COVID. The fact that the definition of vaccine was changed to make room for these dangerous injections should have been a red flag to everyone. A vaccine is supposed to prevent you getting the disease and prevent you transmitting the disease. It should provide long-term protection such that even if someone does get the virus, the body fights it straight off. None of that is true with the COVID injection. These fake vaccines do not prevent people from getting COVID and do not prevent people from spreading COVID. They cripple immune systems, making people more susceptible to future infections. Any protection from severe symptoms is for such a short period of time that it's nothing more than a substandard treatment, a treatment that has caused more harm than good.</para>
<para>This is not my opinion. It is among the findings of a landmark, published, peer-reviewed Cleveland study that found that every dose of the COVID jabs administered to the sample of 50,000 health employees made them more likely to get COVID. A separate re-examination of the Pfizer stage 2-3 clinical trial data that took 18 months, peer-reviewed and published by the Brighton Collaboration, found that the Pfizer vaccine was associated with a 14 per cent worse health outcome than the unvaccinated control trial. If the TGA was doing it job, these injections should never have been approved.</para>
<para>The bad news about our medical response to COVID keeps coming. Only last month a panel of international scientists revealed that the COVID-19 mRNA injections are contaminated with plasma DNA from the manufacturing process. This can cause inflammation of organs and it can cause cancer. Last week I was sent a mainstream television piece which talked about turbo cancers being at record high levels. Medical researchers and doctors interviewed were apparently baffled about the cause. Let me help those researchers out. Here we have a substance that is contaminated through bacterial plasmas known to cause cancer, is full of spike proteins that are a whole class of medication which have not been studied for adverse health effects, and contain a substance called SV40 that directly inhibits our body's resistance to cancer. The injection studied in the clinical trials was not the same product that was used in Australia. That has killed 14 people here and is suspected in a thousand more, and doctors have reported a thousand more deaths. Post-mortem data shows a direct link between the injections and turbo cancer, while at the same time Australia has had 30,000 excess deaths in the last year directly correlated and traced under much scrutiny to the COVID injections. New turbo cancers are at record levels. Australians whose have been in cancer remission for years have suddenly seen their cancer return. Despite the facts now coming out, doctors say they are baffled. The one person more than any other that must be referred to a royal commission is Dr Baffled.</para>
<para>Finally, One Nation does not accept that the quickie COVID cover-up that the Prime Minister announced is in any way fit for purpose. It's not. Asking these commissioners, three COVID insiders, who championed our health response, to conduct an inquiry into themselves and their mates is a travesty of justice that has been roundly condemned right across the Senate. None of us know the guarantees that Prime Minister Albanese gave pharmaceutical salesman and World Health Organization sugar daddy Bill Gates at their meeting in Admiralty House last year and early this year. Surely the need to cover up the evil committed in the name of health was discussed. Did Prime Minister Albanese agree to do just that?</para>
<para>I've been speaking about the fear, the oppression and the inhumane cruelty of our COVID response since July 2020. I promised to hound down those responsible, and I will continue relentlessly to keep that promise. If now is the time for the Prime Minister to call his COVID cover-up, then now must surely be the time for a royal commission. We can't ignore our sworn duty as the house of review any longer. We have one flag, we are one community, we are one nation, and the whole nation wants answers, or we will never heal and, worse, we may well go through all of this again. I ask the Senate to start the process today, pass this motion and let's get the terms of reference sorted.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The COVID pandemic was undoubtedly one of the most significant events to impact Australia, in fact the most significant, since the second World War. It has left an unprecedented mark on this country. During the course of the pandemic, decisions had to be made quickly and in the context of the overwhelming uncertainty that was present at the time. But there's no denying that Australia's health and economic response and the consequential outcomes coming out of the pandemic were world-leading. I want to take this opportunity to thank and acknowledge the actions of our health officials and most particularly our frontline workers, who tirelessly kept Australians safe during that really terrible time.</para>
<para>It only makes sense, in recognition of the significance of this event, that we have a thorough investigation into the decisions made during this challenging period in our history. This is in our national interest, and it's about our preparedness as a country going forward. That's why I know so many Australians felt outraged at the Prime Minister's decision not to pursue a proper inquiry into all the decisions that were made in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. With the announcement of this quasi-inquiry, which specifically excludes the state and territory decisions from its scope, the Prime Minister has clearly put political interest ahead of the national interest. He has broken a significant promise, once again, that he made to the Australian people prior to the last election. The Prime Minister committed to holding a royal commission or a deep inquiry into COVID, looking at the response of all governments across Australia. It's incredibly disappointing the Prime Minister has unapologetically completely deserted this commitment to the Australian people. Instead, he has prioritised his own political interest and has created a protection racket for his premier mates instead of pursuing transparency and accountability and staying true to his word.</para>
<para>It's no wonder why Australians are losing faith in this Prime Minister. He didn't believe Australians deserved any information about his Voice model in the lead-up to the referendum. He is ignoring the significant challenges Australians are currently facing as the cost of living continues to place serious pressure on household budgets. And his blatant disrespect for the Australian public has been shown again with his outrageously inadequate COVID inquiry announcement. Any inquiry into Australia's COVID response that does not involve the states and territories should be called out for what it is. The Prime Minister is looking for a distraction from his failures by creating a witch-hunt against the former coalition government, and he is bowing down to the pressure being put on him by Dan Andrews and Annastacia Palaszczuk. I don't know what's more disappointing—that the Prime Minister has unashamedly broken his promise to the Australian people purely for political reasons, or that the leader of this country is not even prepared to stand up to influence within his own party to make sure the Australian public have the answers they need to keep them safe into the future.</para>
<para>Regardless, it's clear that, in the absence of any powers to compel the involvement of the state and territory governments, the Prime Minister's inquiry is a wasted opportunity to be proactive about Australia's preparedness for a future pandemic, should we unfortunately have to face one. Light must be shone on all the decisions that were taken following the outbreak of COVID-19 in this country, particularly considering the significant role the states and territories played because it was the states and territories who were often solely responsible for the decisions that impacted most on Australians during that time, on Australians' lives and Australians' livelihoods—actions like lockdowns, testing regimes, state border closures and other restrictions placed on Australian people which we know are still having ongoing impacts, particularly on the mental health of young Australians.</para>
<para>Despite what the Prime Minister may seem to believe, an inquiry also must recognise the pandemic did not end on 22 May 2022. In fact, we have seen more COVID related deaths in the first eight months of this government than in the entire first two years of the pandemic. For this inquiry to have any credibility and any integrity it also must undertake international comparisons, and Australia's standing in comparison to other countries must also be considered. All these factors must be looked at as part of a proper and thorough investigation that is genuinely aimed at bolstering Australia's pandemic preparedness so that we can learn from our experiences and prepare, should we ever be faced with this situation in the future. Otherwise all we have from the Albanese Labor government is a half-baked inquiry merely aimed at distracting from Labor's shambolic handling of today's issues and expunging Labor premiers of the states and territories from past decisions that had such a catastrophic impact on the lives of so many Australians.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise in 100 per cent support of Senator Roberts's proposed reference to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, of which I am chair. I would welcome the reference to that committee of Senator Roberts's proposal in this regard.</para>
<para>What the current Labor government has proposed, in terms of a COVID-19 response inquiry, is abysmally inadequate—totally inadequate—and I want to make four points to illustrate my case. I've got the terms of reference for the COVID-19 inquiry, so called, that has been tabled by the federal government. The four points I want to make are these.</para>
<para>Firstly, in terms of areas not in scope for the inquiry, it specifically says: 'Actions taken unilaterally by state and territory governments are not within the scope of the inquiry.' So, as to those unilateral actions taken by state governments and territories across Australia, which were not consistent and which were variable—in Victoria, they had the longest lockdowns anywhere in the world—none of those actions are capable of being inquired into by the federal government's proposed inquiry into the COVID-19 response. It's absolutely disgraceful!</para>
<para>Secondly, I'll give this example: 'Broader health supports for people impacted by COVID-19 and/or lockdowns—for example, mental health and suicide-prevention supports and access to screening and other preventive health measures—are included in the inquiry.' Just consider how farcical this is. This inquiry is going to consider the mental health supports provided by the Commonwealth government to people suffering from lockdowns, but it's not going to consider the lockdowns themselves. It's going to consider the mental health support provided to people in lockdowns, but not the evidence base for the lockdowns themselves. It's absolutely absurd!</para>
<para>Let's have a look at another one: 'Key health response measures—for example, across COVID-19 vaccinations and treatments; key medical supplies, such as PPE; quarantine facilities and public health messaging'. Well, let's talk about a key health response—which I'm sure those senators from Queensland who are in the chamber here now, Senator Hanson and Senator Roberts, would know, in our Queensland context, was absolutely egregious—and that is that people with critical health conditions in northern NSW were not able to access Queensland hospitals. Again, it was a unilateral decision of the Queensland government, a shameful decision—and I spoke in this chamber at the time about it—that those people in northern NSW, including infants, who needed health care critically could not go across the border into Queensland to receive that health care. But that, also, is excluded from the terms of this so-called inquiry.</para>
<para>Here's another example: 'Community supports across early childhood education and care, higher education, housing and homeless measures, et cetera.' 'Early childhood education'—well, what about the decisions to close the schools and the impact that had on children and teenagers? Again, that falls within the rubric of actions taken unilaterally by state and territory governments, so it's carved out from this farcical Commonwealth government inquiry which has been put forward by the federal government. It's absolutely farcical.</para>
<para>This chamber, and each and every single senator in this chamber, should reflect very carefully on Senator Roberts's motion. As Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, I would welcome this reference.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm going to make a few comments as to this, in support of my colleague Senator Roberts in bringing this motion to the Senate and calling for a royal commission into the COVID response. I think it's very important, and I'm going to say a few words as a very concerned Australian who has the privilege and opportunity to speak here in the chamber on behalf of many Australians about the effect this has had on them.</para>
<para>During this period, I was very adamant and concerned about COVID-19, especially the vaccines that we were told to have. I refused to have that vaccine, and I was not going to be bullied or badgered into having it. I was told I couldn't travel or go to pubs, clubs, restaurants or anywhere else unless I had the vaccine. This vaccine was imposed on the Australian people, and it wasn't tested at all by these companies. Testing in reference to vaccines has to be for seven or even 10 years before the vaccine is given to the public. This wasn't. It was done in a very short period of time. Moderna had only been testing, I think, for about 10 months prior to the vaccine being given to the Australian people.</para>
<para>What we have found out since then is the impact that having this vaccine has had on a lot of people in Australia. There have been over 140,000 adverse side effects. That's only people who have reported the side effects or doctors who have reported them to the TGA. That is a big concern. Here in Australia, we have only reported 14 deaths due to the COVID vaccine that they have admitted to, but, as Senator Roberts has stated, there are an extra 30,000 deaths in Australia. A lot of people who died didn't have a true autopsy done on them to determine the real cause of death. Men in particular, after having the vaccine, were affected by myocarditis or pericarditis. It has had an impact on people's health. People pull me up all the time and tell me they have health problems now that they had never had.</para>
<para>A doctor in Rockhampton—get your head around this—who refused to have the vaccine was denied permission to work in the hospital. Rockhampton Hospital, during the night, had no doctors. He wanted to work, but he was told he couldn't work because he hadn't had the vaccination. Doctors were in fear of losing their licences or being unable to practise because, if they refused to give someone a shot, they had to advise them to go and see another doctor to get the vaccine A doctor takes an oath to act in the best interests of the patient they are treating. They should give them the best advice possible. They were shut down from doing that. Why? That should come out. Doctors have a right to explain the reasons why.</para>
<para>There was another thing. Why was ivermectin taken off the prescription list? Why wasn't it allowed to be prescribed by doctors? It's never caused one death in the world, yet we were told it could not be prescribed or given to people. Why? Ivermectin was used in India, and that's what got them over the problems that they had.</para>
<para>These are all questions that need to be asked. Schools were shut down, and we're still hearing to this day about the impact, including the psychological impact, that it's had on our children, but no-one does or says anything about it. In relation to the borders, the premiers of the states became little Hitlers. They did whatever they wanted to do. They shut the borders. They stopped people. As Senator Scarr said, people from northern New South Wales could not come across. There was the case of a woman who was expecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Pratt</name>
    <name.id>I0T</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Point of order, Chair. I know it's not directed at anyone in the chamber, but it is inappropriate to call people 'little Hitlers'.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It does probably offend standing order 193(3), Senator Hanson, so I ask you to withdraw that statement.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, Premier Palaszczuk and Premier—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, could you just, Senator Hanson—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw my comments.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you. You have the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It is an idiom. The fact is that they wielded their power and shut the borders. As Senator Scarr said, there was a woman expecting twins. She couldn't get to the hospital in Queensland. She was denied that access. She lost one of her children. We had people who couldn't come to funerals to see their parents buried. The fact is that they could only see them after the funeral. They had to wear all the PPE gear, covered from head to toe, just to see their dead loved ones. People in nursing homes and aged-care homes couldn't see their loved ones. They were stressing out more about that than about getting COVID. These were people who were on their last bloody legs. All they were concerned about was seeing their loved ones, and they were denied that right because these other people said, 'Oh, no, we've got to keep you safe.' You destroyed these people. You even shut down cancer treatment for people. These people's cancers have grown. People have died now because they could have gotten the treatment but you shut them down because they had COVID—'We have to protect you.' I have never seen such a political scam in all my life, and that's what it was. It became bloody political. The whole fact is that it's cost us—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Hanson, I just ask you to note your language and use appropriate language for the chamber.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Alright. I'm sorry, I'm such a true-blue Aussie I can't help myself, but, anyway, I will try and control it. I get very passionate about this. The fact is that so many people have been affected by this, not even to mention the firefighters. They couldn't work. We had outbreaks of fires, and we had SES workers who couldn't work because they didn't have the jab. Even for firefighters it was allowed—no more jabs—as of only last week. In New South Wales, they stopped the jab in March 2022, and in Victoria it was 2021. But these firefighters, because they refused to have the jab, were denied the work, and they wanted to work. And yet you have Senator Pocock, who raises a motion to say that we should put extra resources into technology because we haven't got firefighters. Well, wake up, Australia. We've denied them the right to work. That's why we haven't got the firefighters. There are so many issues here that need to be addressed.</para>
<para>Senator Roberts touched on the more technical issues with regard to having this inquiry and what we need to delve into and look at. If we ever have another breakout in this country, surely we must know how to handle it—even what we pay out in compensation to people. It was ridiculous to double the payments of people already on welfare payments. What circumstances changed for them? Absolutely none. But it was: 'Oh, let's double their payment. Let's give them more money.' How ridiculous was that? Their circumstances didn't change. Actually, sales of grog and drugs went up in that period of time.</para>
<para>The stupid part about it is that we know there are issues here but no-one is prepared to have a full investigation—a royal commission—into it to understand what has happened and how it should be handled. Are we dictated to by overseas countries, or are we in control of our own country here? Those are the questions you need to ask. Were these guidelines about how we had to behave and what we had to do to people in Australia truly from our government—our elected representatives—or were we told by overseas interests how to handle this? Then ask the question about how much money these companies got paid. Why did the government indemnify Pfizer and Moderna? Isn't it funny? I asked them the question, 'Do you think people were forced to get vaccinated?' They said, 'No, they weren't forced. They weren't forced at all.' That in itself is not the truth. People were forced. They were made to take the vaccine to keep their jobs, pay their mortgages and put food on the table for their families. They were forced to have it. Until we know the truth behind all this, we can't just have a vaccine put on the shelves after 10 months, with people forced to have it against their will to keep their jobs, and not have an investigation into this. Why did the government indemnify these pharmaceutical companies? How much money have we paid to them in the end? How much money has been paid out? How many vaccines did we buy from them? These are all questions that need to be answered.</para>
<para>I say to this chamber: if you really want to be representatives of the people, people are screaming out for these answers. They want the answers. I know where Labor, the Greens, Senator Pocock and the others will stand on this. You don't want it. They don't want accountability, and that has been proven time and time again in this chamber. You are not interested in accountability to the Australian people. I hope that is reflected in the next election. I hope they throw you out on your ear—exactly where you belong—because you're not interested in giving the people of this nation the answers they deserve and need.</para>
<para>Maybe some common sense will prevail. Maybe Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, is watching this. Prime Minister, please do the right thing by the people and call for a royal commission into the COVID response so that we know how to handle it better next time. Let the people have their say. Let the people explain the impact it has had on them so that we know how better to handle this.</para>
<para>I say to the chamber and all the members here: please consider this. It's no skin off your nose, but you would be doing a great service to the people of this nation. Remember that we are their servants and we work for them. We're not here to feather our nest. We're not here just for our pay packet. We shouldn't be here as career politicians—and a lot of people in this place are. We are here to serve the people of this nation.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CADELL</name>
    <name.id>300134</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I was not here in this building when this happened. I was at the Port of Newcastle. I was locked down in a very lovely place at Redhead Beach. I think the governments at the time did their very best to keep Australians safe. I got the jab. I was not overly fearful of the jab at the time.</para>
<para>I know that you can't improve what you don't measure, and you can't improve fully what you don't measure fully. The inquiry we have is not a full measure. The inquiry we need to have is a royal commission. I think similarly to Senator Hanson. Why don't we want to know what was done? Why don't we want to know what happened for next time? Why don't we want to know the scope of everything for the future? I have trouble understanding. I think the gentleman sitting next to me, the Hon. Senator Colbeck, was in the room when some of these things were done. I think they did the best with what they had.</para>
<para>Australia came through it reasonably well. It was not a bad situation, but what could we do better? What information was given to the decision-makers that may not have been full? What leaps of faith did they have to take? If we have everything examined and look at it again, we can say: 'That was wrong last time. That's what they did last time. That's where they failed. That's where they succeeded.' We can say these things. I struggle to understand that this government doesn't want to examine more fully the actions of the previous government. If I were you, I'd be getting a microscope and crawling in every nook and cranny I could find. This is part of it.</para>
<para>I fully support what Senator Roberts said. It's just so we can have a look. I don't think there's any reason to blame anyone. Everyone in Australia had good intentions when this happened. There were mistakes made. Was it perfect? No chance in the world. Were there, Senator Roberts, dodgy Chinese videos done? I don't know. I know I had a dodgy Chinese meal during lockdown. I'm not sure about a dodgy Chinese videos.</para>
<para>We just need to know. We need to tick the good things that were done and cross the rubbish things that were done so that we can say, 'Here's what we should do next time.' It's not a big thing. It's what we should all aspire to. We should aim to improve and look at what we can do. A royal commission is the most powerful and ultimate way of doing it. It needs access to documents. It needs access to people. It needs access to the full scope of what happened. Without that it's a band-aid on a open wound.</para>
<para>I support you for bringing this motion here. I can't think of a reason why we shouldn't support it. I can't think of any reason it won't improve us for the future. You're coming from a good place—it's to know what happened and to know what to do in the future. It's not to blame. It's not to criticise. It's not to do anything like that. It's to find who acted honourably, who didn't act honourably, who we can ignore in the future and who we can trust in the future. That's why it should be supported.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CAROL BROWN</name>
    <name.id>F49</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is important that we learn the lessons of the pandemic and not repeat the mistakes of the former government. The process of learning from the pandemic should be constructive, not deconstructive. The Prime Minister and Minister Butler announced on 21 September that an independent inquiry would be held into Australia's response to COVID-19 to help better prepare and protect our country for the future. The inquiry will look at both the health and the non-health elements of the Commonwealth COVID-19 response and will deliver its final report to government by 30 September 2024. The government has appointed an independent panel to conduct the inquiry. The panellists have vast experience in public health, government and economic policy.</para>
<para>There have been more than 20 reviews into the COVID-19 response in Australia: parliamentary inquiries and administrative reviews and audits commissioned by the Commonwealth and by the states. The independent panel undertaking the COVID-19 response inquiry will bring together the knowledge from all these existing reviews and research, as well as conducting further investigation where needed.</para>
<para>Royal commissions are a useful form of quasi-judicial inquiry when investigating corruption or maladministration. Royal commissions are lengthy and expensive, not what we need in this situation. Public consultation will be completed during the inquiry on the substance of the issues outlined in the terms of reference. Everyone who wants to participate will be able to participate. The independent panel will invite submissions and seek information from other persons and bodies. Consultation will take place across Australia with members of the public; key community stakeholders reflecting a diversity of backgrounds; experts from a wide range of fields, such as scientists, economists and legal experts; and Commonwealth, state and territory government agencies.</para>
<para>Senator Roberts's motion to ask the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee to develop terms of reference for a royal commission by 31 March 2024 would unnecessarily delay the conduct of any form of inquiry. The Albanese government promised an independent inquiry into the COVID-19 response, and that's exactly what we are delivering. We do not support attempts to slow down and derail this inquiry. The COVID-19 pandemic has been the most significant global crisis that we've faced in decades. We need to start the work now to review what worked well and what we can do better to improve Australia's preparedness for future pandemics.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm actually pleased that I had to give way to the minister and hear her statement in relation to this matter. As Senator Cadell said, I do come to this matter with a particular perspective. The previous government went through the process of a royal commission that looked at part of the way in which this country handled the COVID pandemic. Specifically, that was the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, which looked at aged care as part of its process. That commission has reported, and the previous government has obviously responded. And, might I say, it had dealt with the recommendations of the royal commission pretty much by the time they were handed down.</para>
<para>As to what the government is proposing in relation to this current inquiry, even though I come at this from a very different perspective to that of Senator Roberts and others in this chamber, I can say unequivocally, having been in the middle of a lot of what occurred, that it is simply impossible to properly investigate any one of the terms of reference proposed by the government without the involvement of the states. The response to the pandemic was so intertwined between the states and the Commonwealth that, without the capacity to properly investigate the roles of the states, it is simply impossible to properly review what happened during the pandemic. You cannot do it. You cannot properly look at any one—not one—of the terms of reference proposed by the government. So many things occurred during the process. It is impossible to consider, for example, how the national hospitals guarantee put the resources of the private hospital system at the disposal of the states to support their public health response to the pandemic.</para>
<para>The public health response was always, constitutionally, the responsibility of the states, and it continues to be the responsibility of the states. A stunning realisation came to all of us who were asking for COVID data out of Victoria—which was being provided by every other state—that it couldn't be provided because it didn't exist. There was no data available out of Victoria because the Victorian system had completely melted down.</para>
<para>The inquiry proposed by the government doesn't have the power to require the provision of documents. It cannot possibly do its job. And—as was so eloquently put by my colleague Senator Scarr—it doesn't look at the roles of the states. In aged care there were different rules in every state, adding to the significant load on the administration of aged-care providers at a time of extreme stress. As Senator Hanson said, families were locked out of aged care homes. Families were locked out by state decisions, not by Commonwealth decisions. It was the public health orders of the states that did that, not the Commonwealth. This review proposed by the government can't look at that. It's impossible.</para>
<para>The inquiry can't even look properly at the vaccine rollout because of the intrinsic involvement of the states in that process—they were integrally involved. It can't look at how Victoria proposed the concept of hotel quarantine. How did that go? It failed its own management, to the detriment of the country. It can't look at the maintenance of supply chains because it can't look at the restrictions on borders that were applied by the states. It can't look at financial support provided by the government because it can't look at state programs—the states already had programs. It can't look comprehensively at the provision of PPE because it can't look at state based procurement processes. The whole thing can only be seen as a half-baked exercise designed to have a crack at the previous federal government and leave the states out regarding their roles. It can't do all those things.</para>
<para>If the government are genuine about their promise to the Australian people to properly review the pandemic, they should do it properly. They shouldn't do something in a half-baked manner, like they're doing. The review simply cannot properly respond to any of its terms of reference because it doesn't look at the role of the states and it doesn't have the power to go into those states and secure documents and look at the issues that need to be resolved.</para>
<para>So, even though I come at this from a very different perspective to Senator Roberts and Senator Hanson, I think it's incumbent on the government to do something that is comprehensive in the context of looking at the pandemic. I think we deserve that. We went through a lot.</para>
<para>I have to say, though, we came out of the pandemic probably better than nearly every country in the world, and I think the review will show that. I know that, in the context of my portfolio, we were one of the two or three best performing countries on the planet—not that you would've known that from what the now government said during the pandemic itself. I'm happy to stand on my record in that sense, and I think the government should stand up and support this project.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, Senator Colbeck. Resume your seat. Pursuant to order, the debate is interrupted.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MOTIONS</title>
        <page.no>76</page.no>
        <type>MOTIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Israel</title>
          <page.no>76</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I also rise to contribute to the motion on the Hamas attacks on Israel and the ongoing conflict. Like so many, I condemn the unprovoked and abhorrent attack on Israel by Hamas. It is without a doubt difficult to comprehend the scale and savagery of what the world has witnessed unfold in Israel over the past week. What we have seen has been pure destruction and terror inflicted by Hamas on a level that Israel has never seen before. As Sukkoth—a week-long festival to commemorate the harvest and the period after the Israelites were freed from slavery in Egypt—was coming to an end, Hamas militants commenced a fully-fledged surprise attack on Israeli cities on the outskirts of Gaza. At least 1,400 Israelis have been killed so far. Hordes of Hamas militants infiltrated kibbutz after kibbutz after kibbutz, setting buildings alight, killing innocent Israeli citizens, taking women, children and the elderly back to Gaza to be held hostage. Young Israelis were enjoying a music festival in the desert—and I have to say, as someone who had the privilege of living in Israel for almost two years, I many times danced in the desert when I was living on a moshav in Ein Gedi; I know how beautiful it is and what we used to do as young people. They were terrorised by Hamas attackers who came from all angles, descending from the sky on paragliders and arriving in a convoy of cars, vans, trucks and motorcycles. At least 260 were killed by militants armed with AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades. Civilians who were trying to flee were gunned down in their cars and on the streets by these jihadis, their bloodied bodies lying lifeless on the side of the road or, even worse, paraded around the streets in the back of utes. As if these attacks on babies, boys and girls, men and women and, as we saw reported yesterday, elderly Holocaust survivors could not get any more sickening, much of Hamas's unashamed sadism has been posted online for the whole world to see.</para>
<para>Innocent Palestinian civilians and Israeli hostages will continue to be deliberately used as human shields by Hamas. Why? Because Hamas does not care. This is their modus operandi. These innocent people will simply be collateral damage. Australia and many of our allies across the globe, including Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States, the European Union and Japan, recognise that Hamas is a terrorist organisation controlled by Islamic extremists. After Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, Hamas became the de facto authority. It has reigned supreme ever since. Palestinians in Gaza have not voted for a legislature since 2006, nor a president since 2008. Time and time again, Hamas has shown its blatant disregard for life by inflicting sheer terror on innocent civilians, most of whom are Jewish people, in an attempt to destroy Israel. Last week's attack was the most sickening and brutal example of this yet. We have all seen the shocking reports in the media and the videos that have been circulated online over the past week of hundreds of Hamas terrorists raiding and setting fire to homes, abducting and holding innocent people hostage, beheading helpless babies and massacring kibbutzniks on the kibbutz. Nothing can ever justify killing innocent people in this way.</para>
<para>Hamas has no desire for a peaceful two-state solution, something which both Israelis and Palestinians have been open to in the past. Hamas has always rejected Israel's right to exist. Putting it simply, this attack is an attempt to destroy Israel and inflict maximum harm on its people. Israel has every right to fight back against this terrorism and anti-Semitism. It has every right to deter future attacks in order to defend itself. It has every right to put an end to any further aggression, coercion and interference, to ensure the protection of its people. The coalition recognises and unequivocally supports Israel's right to do this.</para>
<para>In supporting Israel it must be stressed, though, that the coalition acknowledges the devastating loss of life and suffering that the Palestinian people are experiencing as a result of these attacks by Hamas. It is inevitable that Israel will retaliate in response to the attacks by Hamas. But for Israel this war is not about killing the terrorists who seek to obliterate it; it is about breaking the power of Hamas and upholding the foundation of nationhood and the rules and norms that Hamas so obviously seeks to destroy.</para>
<para>This morning the coalition party room had the honour and the privilege of being briefed by Israel's ambassador to Australia., His Excellency Mr Amir Maimon. To echo the comments of the Leader of the Opposition, the coalition wishes Israel swift success in a war it did not choose but which it is compelled to fight.</para>
<para>What has occurred in Israel has been deeply distressing for many in the Australian community. Many have family and friends who are caught up on both sides of this conflict. In the light of the Hamas attack on Israel, we have seen a number of pro-Palestine protests occur across Australia. While there is most certainly a place in Australia for peaceful protest—this is something that we all value—there is absolutely no place in this country for protesters who show such disdain and disregard for people who subscribe to a religion that isn't their own. Those chanting 'Gas the Jews, F the Jews and F Israel' and burning Israel's flag outside the Sydney Opera House are, quite frankly, a disgrace to our nation. They have a disregard for human decency. I condemn them and their behaviour in the strongest possible terms. It is extremely concerning that the sort of violence and hatred being pushed by Hamas has been replicated and directed at Australia's Jewish population, and it is disgusting and, quite frankly, extremely disturbing that language and behaviour of this sort is being used in our country. I support the Leader of the Opposition's statements in relation to considering the deportation of people on temporary visas who have broken the law, incited violence and spewed such vile, anti-Semitic hate speech at these protests.</para>
<para>Understandably, there is a heightened sense of anxiety amongst Jewish Australians at the moment. Our Jewish community was unable to gather at the Opera House, which was lit up in blue and white, like many landmarks across Australia and around the world, as a sign of support. They were told by the New South Wales police minister to stay at home. Jewish people are worried about their children wearing the Jewish school uniform out and about in public. Jewish people are worried about doing their food shopping at their local Jewish supermarket. Jewish people are worried about being targeted for practising their faith at a synagogue. We have also seen reports that Jewish students are avoiding university campuses out of fear and concern for their safety due to anti-Israel slogans and material being broadcasted and distributed at various campuses across the country. Freedom of speech on campuses should be in no way limited, but it is incredibly concerning and disheartening to hear that Jewish students feel threatened by other students celebrating these attacks.</para>
<para>Last Wednesday night, a number of my colleagues and I were honoured to attend a vigil service with Perth's Jewish community at the Perth Hebrew Congregation. There were over 1,000 people in attendance, but we joined with millions around the world—people of good faith, people who stand with Israel and people who speak out and push back against the unimaginable barbarity that we have witnessed in Israel in the recent days.</para>
<para>We are so fortunate to live in a country that has been built on the foundation of tolerance and mutual respect for one another. But there must be consequences for those who threaten our social cohesion and behave as some unfortunately have. Hateful prejudice has no place in Australia. What is occurring in Israel is beyond comprehension. The horror that innocent people are being subjected to is unjustifiable. Deliberate acts of terror being inflicted by Hamas are fundamentally abhorrent.</para>
<para>Like any sovereign democratic nation, Israel has a right to defend itself and protect its people from terrorism. Australia should support and help Israel in any way that it can, without question. Israel is doing its utmost to ensure that the conflict is contained, civilians are protected and casualties are minimised. Barbarity, however, cannot prevail. By standing with Israel, Australia is supporting it in one of its darkest times and is showing Jewish communities here in Australia that they have our unwavering support.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RICE</name>
    <name.id>155410</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This place, Parliament House, was built on the stolen lands of Ngunnawal people, and I want to acknowledge them as the First People of these lands. I acknowledge all First Nations peoples across the country and their elders and I acknowledge that I'm a settler on these lands. Many First Nations people are hurting this week following the defeat of the Voice referendum. The consequences of invasion, ongoing dispossession and genocide are felt today, and I salute the resilience and strength of First Nations people, who have suffered so much for so long.</para>
<para>The parallels between the struggles of First Nations people and the continuing campaign for a just and lasting peace in Palestine are stark—invasion, occupation, resistance and catastrophe. I want to acknowledge the pain, the suffering, the mourning and the grief that are being experience by people in Palestine and Israel. This pain is also being felt across Australia and around the world. These are awful times. I send my love to the families, friends and communities of everyone who has been killed, injured, displaced, traumatised by the continuing war in Israel and Palestine—Palestinians and Israelis alike.</para>
<para>My colleague Senator Steele-John has moved to amend the motion we are debating today on Israel and Palestine to call for an end to the invasion and siege of Gaza and an end to the occupation of Palestine and to condemn the war crimes perpetrated by the state of Israel. We also have on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline> our own motion, which we think better reflects what we believe the position of the Senate and the government should be in order to be supporting an end to the violence in the Middle East and for a just and lasting peace. I want to be clear: the Greens and I condemn the attacks by Hamas on innocent civilians in Israel. My heart goes out to the families and friends of the people who have been killed and injured in these attacks.</para>
<para>Israel does have a right to defend itself, but it has no right to inflict the collective punishment and war crimes that the Israeli government is currently inflicting in Gaza. The civilian death toll continues to climb in Gaza. The constant bombardment of Gaza by the Israeli Defense Forces has killed thousands. The Israeli Air Force has dropped nearly 6,000 bombs in Gaza in just six days. This is almost the same number of bombs that the US dropped in Afghanistan in the whole of 2019. The denial of food, water and electricity is resulting in catastrophic losses of life. Authorities in Gaza have said that more than 2,300 people have been killed, a quarter of them children. Nearly 10,000 have been injured, and hundreds of thousands have been displaced. Gaza is one of the most densely populated places in the world, and it's estimated that 40 per cent of the population are under the age of 15.</para>
<para>A spokesperson for the UN agency working in Palestine, UNRWA, has said today: 'We are overwhelmed. Our supplies are dwindling and running out fast. Our staff are also very, very tired. They have been impacted themselves by the war. Many of them have lost loved ones. We have sadly at UNRWA lost 14 staff members, and these numbers continue to increase. No place is safe in the Gaza Strip at the moment as the bombardments continue. UNRWA teams are operated from an overcrowded warehouse in southern Gaza, with hundreds of people sharing one toilet.' The spokesperson added: 'Our own staff have had to ration drinking water to one litre.' She said: 'Most of Gaza—in fact, the vast majority of Gaza—does not have running water. We are fearful that waterborne diseases are going to start spreading and are going to start spreading soon.' She also said: 'UNRWA has not been able to bring any supplies, including fuel, into the Gaza Strip.' The World Health Organization has called the order to evacuate hospitals a death sentence for the thousands of sick and injured.</para>
<para>The Greens condemn all horrific attacks on civilians. There must be an end to the escalating violence and an end to the war crimes. The Israel-Palestine conflicts have been ongoing for over 70 years, since the beginning of the state of Israel—since the Nakba, when, between 1947 and 1949, at least 750,000 Palestinians from a 1.9-million-person population were made refugees beyond the borders of the state. The world has to act to stop the wars and the violence. We have to focus our efforts into achieving a just and lasting peace. For there to be peace, there must be an end to the state of Israel's illegal occupation of and siege of Palestinian lands.</para>
<para>That being said, the right to resist occupation must be in accordance with international law. The premeditated targeting of civilians by Hamas violates these laws, and, as I have said, the Greens condemn their actions. The bombing of civilians by the state of Israel in response violates these laws. All perpetrators must be held accountable for their actions, in accordance with international law. The Greens are calling for an immediate ceasefire and then, following that ceasefire, a redoubling of efforts to end the occupation and establish a just and lasting peace.</para>
<para>While the state of Israel is practising the crime of apartheid against Palestinians, as has been noted by prominent human rights organisations, there will be no peace. While the state of Israel continues to oppress, arrest, jail and kill Palestinians just for being Palestinian and speaking up and campaigning for their rights to their lands, there will be no peace—even with all the technology, all the deadly machines of war and all the security apparatus that the Israeli state can muster.</para>
<para>The only way that this could lead to peace would be if the plan was complete annihilation, genocide, ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian peoples in Palestine so that there is no-one left to resist. Surely this isn't what the state of Israel has in mind. Surely Australia and the rest of the world would not allow the state of Israel to do this. There is a way through these conflicts. It starts with people and governments listening to people's heartfelt desire for peace, a just and enduring peace, and committing to peace. And building this peace includes calling out hateful and violent racism and bigotry, including antisemitism and Islamophobia. There is no place for antisemitism or Islamophobia in the push to end the occupation of Palestine and to build a lasting peace.</para>
<para>As Adam Bandt has said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">This is a painful time for the Jewish and Palestinian communities in Australia, who must be able to grieve the loss of loved ones and publicly express solidarity for those trying to stay safe back home, and antisemitic and Islamophobic attacks on Australia's Jewish and Palestinian communities must stop.</para></quote>
<para>The desire for peace was demonstrated in the last week, as thousands of people gathered around Australia to peacefully protest the brutal war that is bringing pain and grief to so many.</para>
<para>So what can be done? The Greens have recently revised our declaration on justice and human rights in Palestine and Israel. The principles we set out in it are all the more relevant as we grapple with the current horrific reality. In it we acknowledge:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The state of Israel continues to deny the right of self-determination to Palestinians and continues to dispossess them of their land. We aim to rectify this injustice in ways that will allow both Palestinians and Israelis to live in peace, security and equality, exercising self-determination as described by the United Nations Charter.</para></quote>
<para>We:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Call on all parties to comply with international law, relevant United Nations (UN) resolutions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Conventions, the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid.</para></quote>
<para>We call on governments to:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Reject and condemn all forms of violence, especially against civilians, whether perpetrated by a state, organisations or individuals, while recognising the right of the Palestinian people to resist Israeli occupation in accordance with international law.</para></quote>
<para>We:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… support the tactics of boycotts, divestments and targeted sanctions that are strategic and human rights aligned on:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">a) Government representatives, institutions and state-affiliated entities of the state of Israel and the Israeli military and/or;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">b) Corporations, entities and organisations that profit from or are complicit in the violation of Palestinian human rights.</para></quote>
<para>We:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Affirm that criticism of Israeli government policies and actions is not antisemitic, and therefore oppose the adoption and enforcement of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism which conflates criticism of the state of Israel with antisemitism.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recognise the rise of hateful and violent racism and bigotry including antisemitism and Islamophobia in Australia and commit to the development of thorough anti-racism policies.</para></quote>
<para>We:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Recognise the Right of Return of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to their place of origin through a just and acceptable solution based on UN Resolution 194, or compensation for those who choose not to return. Additionally, support the establishment of international mechanisms guided by international law to facilitate this outcome.</para></quote>
<para>and:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Given the continuing disregard by the state of Israel of calls to halt settlement expansion in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, the Australian Greens:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Call upon the Australian and State governments to halt military and security trade and cooperation with the state of Israel.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Reiterate our call for the immediate freezing of all Israeli settlement activity in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Call for the removal of existing Israeli settlers and Israeli security and military forces from the Occupied Palestinian Territories.</para></quote>
<para>The Greens stand for peace—peace for Palestinians, peace for Israelis. History will be on the side of those who condemn the violence, condemn the murders and condemn the occupation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McLACHLAN</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in support of the motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, condemning Hamas' attacks and expressing that we stand with Israel and recognising Israel's inherent right to defend itself. I do not support the amendment moved by the Australian Greens. There have been many contributions on this motion. I wish to particularly express my strong agreement with the contribution made by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. I also want to associate myself with the remarks of my friend and colleague in the other place Mr Julian Leeser.</para>
<para>I was in Israel earlier this year, and it is a vibrant and diverse society. The attack on it was barbarous. My thoughts are with the people of Israel, especially those who I met, who were so generous in welcoming me to their homeland. Like Mr Leeser, I am deeply concerned about the rise of antisemitism in this country. I recommit myself to do more to fight this terrible behaviour and to do all that I can to ensure that the Jewish community in my state remains safe.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CICCONE</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to express my solidarity with the people of Israel, who, on the morning of 7 October, were targeted by Hamas in a horrific terrorist attack. This attack came without warning, deliberately targeting innocent civilians. The heinous terrorist attack carried out by Hamas against Israel is an appalling breach of peace. As the world is mourning the greatest loss of Jewish lives in a single day since the Holocaust, Hamas's evil cannot be overstated. The abhorrent acts of terrorism must universally be condemned without qualification. The government has been very clear that Israel has a right to defend itself.</para>
<para>The news of the loss of an Australian citizen, Galit Carbone, is particularly devastating. My thoughts and prayers are with not just her family and friends but all the family and friends who have lost loved ones at this time, because no-one wins from war.</para>
<para>The Australian government's priority has been providing passage out of the conflict for Australian citizens. As we heard from the Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister for Foreign Affairs, we've had hundreds of Australians recently arrive back on our shores. More than 400 Australians have now been airlifted from Israel on government supported flights. These include the deployment of two RAAF aircraft and a government supported private charter flight. DFAT is in contact with Australians in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank who have registered through the crisis portal. I want to take this opportunity to thank our DFAT officials and countries including the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates for facilitating the passage of Australians to get home safely.</para>
<para>I also want to touch on some of the political commentary that I've read following this horrific terrorist attack. Instead of unequivocally condemning this blatant act of terrorism—the firing of rockets on civilians and the seizure of civilian hostages, including children, women and the elderly—some have sought to muddy the moral waters and make 'both sides' arguments about what has occurred since the morning of 7 October. These arguments ignore the facts. They are an insult to innocent people, both Arabs and Jews, who have been killed or injured by Hamas terrorists over the past 10 days. Hamas must be condemned for beginning this conflict while continuing its longstanding practice of hiding its military assets in densely populated residential areas and using innocent people as shields while it carries out its terrorism. Let me be very clear: since it was established in 1987 and since it gained power in Gaza 20 years later, Hamas's goal has been the destruction of the State of Israel and the murder of Jewish people. The Australian government rightly listed Hamas as a terrorist organisation in its entirety last year. There is no justification for this terrorism. There is no both sides, middle-of-the-road argument to be had here. Those trying to draw some false moral equivalents are providing cover for the most horrific expression of anti-Semitism.</para>
<para>Unfortunately, this is exactly what some in this place and in the other place have done. I guess actions speak louder than words—yesterday, we saw the Australian Greens, in particular, in the House of Representatives vote against a government motion condemning Hamas's terrorist attack on Israel, which has been described as simply despicable. There are no equivalents between the barbaric acts of these terrorists and Israel's efforts to remove a mortal threat to her people, which includes Arabs, Jews, Christians and people of no religious belief. Hamas has committed a grievous crime against humanity, and Israel has a right to defend itself and her people.</para>
<para>Like any decent person, I've been horrified by the footage from protests occurring that support the actions of Hamas and celebrate the murder of Jewish people for just simply believing in a faith. I will not repeat the chants from these protests here today, but I'm sure all of us would have at least seen the reports of videos online that show people talking about Hamas's attack as a cause for happiness and, even more horrifically, making reference to the murder of Jewish people by Nazis as something that should be celebrated and repeated.</para>
<para>Surely we have learnt the lessons from previous wars. There is no place for this rhetoric. There is no place for anti-Semitism. Just as there is no place for Islamophobia. There is no place to discriminate against people. As a proud multicultural liberal democracy, there is no place for any discrimination on the basis of one's faith, religious beliefs or race in Australia. Hamas's terrorism should draw universal condemnation, as should these anti-Semitic protests.</para>
<para>I want to express my particular solidarity with Australia's Jewish community. Last week, I had the opportunity to check in with Rabbi Kaltmann and friends at the ARK Centre in Melbourne and attended the Jewish community solidarity rally at Caulfield synagogue, along with the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia and the Deputy Premier of Victoria. As Rabbi Gabi said to me: 'Our people are not okay right now. Hamas's terrorism and the open expression of anti-Semitism in Australia are an enormous weight on our Jewish community. How is it so that simply being Jewish allows people to target you?'</para>
<para>But my message to Rabbi Gabi and the Jewish community is simple: Australia stands with you, the parliament stands with you and this government stands with you. Those people celebrating this attack do not represent the vast majority of Australians, who are horrified by Hamas's actions. And I know that the thoughts of many Australians are with those who have been lost and those family members and friends who have been kidnapped by Hamas, and we continue to pray for their safe return.</para>
<para>In closing, Australia stands in solidarity with the state of Israel and the Jewish community. I, unequivocally, along with my colleagues, condemn terrorism and anti-Semitism in all its forms.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Like most Australians, I was horrified when I saw the reports of the terrorist attacks by Hamas criminals on the people of Israel. Israel has the right to defend and protect its citizens. It also has an obligation to. I have every confidence Israel and the international community will do everything they can to ensure those people who committed the crimes of last week are held to account. My heart goes out to Israeli families who are grieving and to Australians who are worrying about their families in Israel and Gaza. My thoughts are also with innocent Palestinians who have died or those who are desperately trying to get out of Gaza. Those people must be granted safe passage and they must be allowed aid. I am confident Israel will ensure they have it. Additionally, Egypt must open its border to refugees from Gaza. This must happen. It must happen.</para>
<para>I won't and don't pretend to be an expert on the Israel-Palestinian conflict but I know a criminal act when I see one; I have no problem in calling that out. Reasonable people out there know the same; they see what I see. Being a soldier, I can assure you, is an honourable profession. But soldiers don't murder babies or take whole families hostage. I would not call Hamas fighters. I wouldn't even call them militants. I wouldn't give them any credibility whatsoever, because basically they are brutal rapists and murderers. That is what Hamas is. They are criminals who murder young people at a music festival. They are criminals who murder mothers and fathers and they are criminals who murder children and babies.</para>
<para>A man holding a gun against a child or a baby is not fighting. He is not a fighter. He is nothing less than a thug. He is a thug. He is a coward. I would ask the media to listen to what I have to say. Call Hamas what they are. Call them out because they are terrorists, they are criminals and they are murderers. Do not call them 'freedom fighters'. They are not freedom and they are not fighters. Call them what they are. They are terrorists, criminals and murderers. That is what Hamas is. They are cowards that kidnap innocent, unarmed civilians and they need to release them now.</para>
<para>Australians should know that Hamas is also brutal to the Palestinian people. We Australians need to draw a very thick line between Hamas and the Palestinians. They are not the same. Hamas is a prescribed terrorist organisation. It is also a criminal organisation. In July and August, this year, there were reports of Palestinians protesting Hamas in Gaza. They marched under the slogan, 'We want to live', the same slogan used in the 2019 protests. They were protesting because Hamas is a brutal, criminal, murderous organisation that exploits innocent civilians for its own evil purposes. True to form, instead of listening to the protesters and seeking to understand their message, they acted with violence. What else would they do? They rounded up organisers and punished protesters. That's what they did. Palestinians were tortured and murdered for peacefully speaking out against a brutal regime.</para>
<para>Hamas does not support Palestinian people. When aid is sent to Gaza, it is taken by Hamas for its terrorists. When concrete and building materials are sent in to Gaza, Hamas takes them to build its tunnels. When water pipes are laid in Gaza, Hamas digs them up and turn them into missiles. They are not the friend of Palestinians. They are not your friend. When everyday Palestinians speak up against Hamas, they are imprisoned, tortured and murdered. That is what Hamas does. When there is a call for people in Gaza to take shelter, Hamas, through its criminal actions, has thrown the Palestinian people into chaos. Hamas is using Palestinians as human shields. It is cynically putting civilians, including children and babies, in harm's way while hiding in the shadows. Hamas are the gutless, faceless men. That's what they are. That's all they are.</para>
<para>Hamas doesn't want freedom for Palestinians. Hamas doesn't want peace. Hamas openly rejects negotiated peace in favour of jihad against all Jews. Hamas don't only say they want to wipe out the State of Israel; they say they want to kill all Jews. This is what they mean when they say 'from the river to the sea'. These are not words of freedom fighters. They are the words of a terrorist, a coward, a murderer—and the list could go on and on and on. But you're not getting any credibility from me. Hamas only wants war. Well, now you have it, and I say this to you, be careful what you wish for, because I feel it's not going to end well for you.</para>
<para>I would also like to acknowledge the efforts of US Secretary of State Antony Blinken to get humanitarian aid into Gaza and to get innocent Palestinians and foreign nationals out as quickly as possible. We thank you. I would also like to acknowledge and thank Minister Wong for her efforts to evacuate Australians and Pacific islanders from the region. Many Australians and Pacific islanders are now back home because of Minister Wong and the efforts of her office and her department. These Australians are working around the clock to get Australians and our Pacific family home, and this is what family does. I would also like to acknowledge the Republic of Fiji for getting some of our Australians out. Thank you.</para>
<para>Conflicts like this one have impacted on the Jewish and Palestinian communities in Australia. We are a multicultural nation, and it is our responsibility to care for these communities at a time like this. I am very disturbed about recent reports of increasing antisemitic attacks on Australian Jewish people. I was also absolutely disgusted by the racist and awful chants that came from a few of the protesters in the pro-Palestinian rallies held in Australia last week. It is very un-Australian, and that is not the way we do things in this country. We have laws against hate speech in this country, and we have them for a reason, and law enforcement, if needed, should use those laws to deal with hate speech. We gave you that power. Use it. There is no place for racist speech anywhere in this country, against Jews or anyone else. It's a democratic right of all Australians to protest, but that must be done peacefully, and we do that respectfully in this country.</para>
<para>Mike Burgess, the head of ASIO, has urged Australian leaders not to use language that might inflame the situation and fuel community tensions. For political leaders, or any leaders, to use the situation in Israel to score political points is just not on and it is not helpful. Australia has Jewish and Palestinian communities, and everything should be done to lower the temperature, not to dial it up. All leaders of all persuasions should do their best to comfort their people and do what they can to help Australians reach their loved ones.</para>
<para>A senior Hamas official was interviewed on Russian TV three days ago and admitted in this interview that this attack against Israel had been planned for years. This senior Hamas official said that, while Hamas were claiming to be a government for Palestinian people, they were in fact planning these brutal attacks. Putin is no doubt hoping that the war in Israel will draw attention away from the war in Ukraine. We can't let this happen. Right now we've got to keep our eye on the ball, so it's not just in Gaza we need to be watching; we need to make sure that we're keeping our eye on the ball at all times in relation to what is going on in Ukraine. These battles are the same. They are a fight for the rule of law. When Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, found out about the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel, he recorded a speech offering solidarity to Israel and making this point:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We are in different countries and in completely different conditions. But the threat is the same: for both us and you—the total destruction of the people, state, culture. And even of the names: Ukraine, Israel.</para></quote>
<para>President Zelenskyy is a Ukrainian Jew and he lost many of his family members in the Holocaust when Nazis invaded eastern Europe in 1941. Rather than transporting Jews to concentration camps, Hitler sent Nazi death squads into the streets to kill Jewish men, women and children. More than one million Ukrainian Jews were killed during the Holocaust. President Zelenskyy's grandfather fought with the Russian army in World War II against the Nazis. His grandson is now fighting the corrupt Putin regime.</para>
<para>The leaders of Russia and Hamas have something in common—they have no moral compass, not one bit. They both are terrorists, war criminals and murderers. We must support Israel and the people of Israel and we must continue to support Ukraine and the people of Ukraine. We should do all we can to ensure that innocent Palestinians are given every chance to get to safety. Palestinians must be granted safe passage out. They must be allowed to escape harm's way.</para>
<para>For a moment let us focus on Ukraine. We must keep our support for Ukraine. We can't take our eye off the ball now. In the last few days US state department officials have described the current battle for the Ukrainian town of Avdiivka as a new Russian offensive. I quote: 'They are striking with everything they have. Bouts of shooting, artillery, multiple rocket launchers, mortars and a lot of aircraft.' Like Hamas, Putin's Russian army targets civilians, women and children. Once again, neither of them has a moral compass. This needs to be called out, and innocent civilians need to be protected. Racism and brutality need to be called out at every opportunity.</para>
<para>What is happening in Israel, in Gaza and in Ukraine is distressing for many Australians and their families. Once again, Australians must do everything that they can to support these communities and stand up for our beliefs, and one of those is the international rule of law.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to contribute to this debate on Israel. From the outset I make it clear that I rise in this place as a member of the Australian government and a senator for Tasmania. I'm also looking at this issue through the prism of being a mother, a sister and a grandmother. I cannot possibly come to terms with what the people of Israel and Palestine are going through right now. We live in very uncertain times and the people of that region are going through exceptionally difficult and trying times. Their entire world as they know it is breaking down. My thoughts and prayers are with them.</para>
<para>We stand with you against the abhorrent terrorist attacks. Our hearts break for the loss of innocence, the young lives, the babies, the children, the grandparents and the parents. I unequivocally condemn the attacks on Israel by the terrorist group Hamas. The actions that took place that started this conflict last week were cowardice acts of terrorism. There are no other words for it. Murders at a concert, murders within the homes of families—all innocent lives perished—murdering civilians, including women, children and babies, and taking Israelis hostage and other acts of bloodshed and barbarianism are to be condemned in the strongest possible terms.</para>
<para>The attack by Hamas was brutal in its scale: 1,400 civilians murdered, 3,500 people injured and as many as 150 people taken from Israel and held hostage in Gaza. These are not just 150 people; these are women, children, men and grandparents. We don't know the full extent at this point in time.</para>
<para>Australia stands with Israel, and always will. Just as we will always remember the thousands of years of persecution and atrocities perpetrated against the Jewish people and the six million European Jews killed in the Holocaust, which led to the establishment of the State of Israel.</para>
<para>I stand with Israel and recognise its rights to defend itself. We must all call out this racism, this terrorist attack, for what it really is. 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, we stand resolute.</para>
<para>I want to commend today, here in this place, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Penny Wong, for her leadership, and the Prime Minister, as I do those leaders within our communities who have been very considered in the language that they are using, to ensure that we are, as we should be, good international citizens. We should be doing everything we can to bring about peace. But we also must ensure that that peace and respect are foremost in our minds and the minds of those people who are protesting in our streets, and of those who are emotionally charged—which we can all understand, irrespective of whether you are pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli. What we are really pro is human life and humanity.</para>
<para>Australia's principled position in all contexts is to call for peace, for the protection of civilian lives and for the observance of international humanitarian law. I concur with US President Biden—that rules of engagement must be upheld, and peace must not be just hopeful thought but rather humanitarian duty. If this conflict were to spread across the region, the risk to Israeli security would be increased, as it would be for the Israeli and Palestinian civilians and for civilian populations throughout the region. Averting regional escalation is crucial. It matters to the people of the region and it matters to the entire world.</para>
<para>The Jewish people do not deserve the prejudice they face every day. I reach out to the Jewish community in Australia, who are suffering right now—concerned for their family, their friends and their loved ones; seeing the pictures of war and of their homeland destroyed.</para>
<para>But I implore people to ensure that, with our sadness and with our concern, we are respectful of other people's views and we are very careful with our words, because the tone of what we say within this chamber and the other place sets the lead for the rest of the country to follow. I despair with the greatest sadness when I see protesters in Australia engaged in antisemitic behaviour. This has no place in Australia. It should be rightly condemned, and people should face the full brunt of the justice system for these types of insensitive and cruel actions. My family having been on the receiving end of racism in my home state of Tasmania, and knowing what my girls went through, I feel very deeply about racism. Whether we're talking about the conflict in the Middle East or about what has happened in this country in recent times, unfortunately, there is a very strong element of racism that can be tapped into when people are emotional and when people want to use it for their own political gain.</para>
<para>I have long been a supporter of the two-state solution, and I have a long-held view that coincides with the majority of Western countries. I had the great fortune of visiting Israel—and I have to say that, of the places that I've been in this country and around the world, the most moving place I have ever been on this planet was old Jerusalem—and sitting and sharing a meal with Palestinians and with Israelis.</para>
<para>The conflict has been going on for far too long. Unfortunately, there's only so much we can do. But, in times like this, we have huge responsibility as an international leader. People look to Australia. That's why it's so important that we use the right tone and that we express our concern for humanity and for all those innocent people that have been caught up in this conflict, and that we condemn the terrorism for what it really is.</para>
<para>We need peace in that region. Peace is the only currency that is going to serve Israelis and Palestinians. But what concerns me is how rapidly things can deteriorate. I haven't been abreast, over the last few hours, of any changes that are happening in Gaza, but I have had some news of people arriving back in this country and how grateful they were to the government and the department for the way that they have been treated. It makes me very proud to be an Australian when we show that hand of humanity and friendship. Dual citizens know that we are standing there with them, standing for humanity and standing against terrorism, wherever that is.</para>
<para>We need to ensure that civilians are protected and have safe passage if they need to leave the region. We know what the Israelis are asking people to do. Our responsibility as a government is to make sure that we provide financial support to the humanitarian not-for-profits that are there supporting those people to ensure that they have safe passage, food, water and other provisions. I'm so proud of the money that we've already given, including $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.</para>
<para>As I've said in this place many times, I condemn in the strongest possible terms hate speech, violent extremism and antisemitic overtures. Tonight I want to reiterate that. Australia is a country of people who are very compassionate. We believe in humanity. We believe in the sanctity of life. As a mother, a sister and a grandmother, my heart goes out. I don't know how families are going to recover from these atrocities, but we as a country have a responsibility, as I said, to be a good international citizen. I just urge those people and the Israeli government to ensure that food supplies and water are available to Gaza, because we're talking about innocent families here. We're talking about civilians. These people are trying to survive.</para>
<para>Millions of people should not suffer because of the senseless acts of a few. We must be better. We must preserve life at all costs. I welcome the repatriation flights bringing Australians home to safety. I spoke to Senator O'Neill tonight, who was there and able to greet some of those citizens arriving back. What a great honour to be able to do that and to know that there were welcoming people there who were grateful to see them returning home. Those messages and that support, now that they have arrived home, are not the end of it. They have to deal with the consequences of what they've lived through.</para>
<para>Again, I urge people in this place and the other place and within the community to be respectful, to understand that we are responsible citizens of the globe and that we should be leading by example and doing everything we can to bring about peace, to bring about support for people, to make sure that they have the basic humanitarian needs that we all need. We should do everything we can to bring an end to this conflict as soon as possible but also to stand with Israel, to condemn this terrorist attack and to be strong international citizens ourselves.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Words are inadequate to respond to the atrocities, the horror and the acts of terrorism we've seen in recent days in Israel. I join with colleagues in condemning these attacks by Hamas. I join in condemning the callous disregard for life and the brutal, bloody murder of the elderly, of women, of children and of babies, all inflicted by Hamas.</para>
<para>As a father of three young men, nothing drove fear or anger, sadness and a sense of sickness into my heart more than the abominable treatment of the most innocent people in society—babies and children. Upon seeing the footage of the young boy encircled by Hamas terrorists being taunted while he cried out for his mother made it clear exactly what was going on here and who was perpetrating wrong.</para>
<para>At that moment, I wanted to rush to be with my boys, to hold them tight. The idea or the fear of anything happening to them was just incomprehensible to me. Anyone in our country—our country of peace, our country of safety and our country of democracy—who did not see that or anything like it and cry for the atrocities being perpetrated and condemn them defies humanity.</para>
<para>Similarly, our response as Australians and how we support the Jewish-Australian community is equally important. Standing in solidarity with the Jewish community is something I do proudly and without hesitation. Speaking today with the President of the Hobart Synagogue, Jeff Schneider, he expressed to me why that support is so critical and so necessary. In Tasmania, like so many other parts of the country and, indeed, the world, there's a fear in the community. Anything that could give rise to further tensions, particularly anti-Semitism, must be stamped out and, indeed, condemned immediately, which is why I despair at recent events in this parliament.</para>
<para>It was just yesterday, in the other place, we witnessed something that goes against everything I've just said and goes against the Australian spirit, in my view. The Leader of the Greens political party in this place, supported by teal Independents, and, indeed, Mr Andrew Wilkie, the member for Clark in Tasmania, moved to condemn Israel in the wake of acts of terror perpetrated by Hamas unto Israel. It defies logic and humanity. Israeli babies were beheaded, Israeli children were raped and tortured and some in this parliament seek to condemn Israel.</para>
<para>To seek to draw some equivalence between acts of terror by Hamas with the acts of defence of Israel is wrong. There is no comparison. This moral relativism to justify acts of terror is an insidious and dangerous way of thinking. I say those members responsible for and supportive of this stunt should explain to not only the Jewish community why their actions were justified but they need to speak to the rest of Australia as well. What we do here matters, and we're accountable for it. So I call on Mr Wilkie to front up in Hobart and explain to the Jewish community and to the Clark electorate why he did what he did and why he thought he was right to do so.</para>
<para>I know, as I said, having spoken to Mr Schneider from the Hobart Synagogue, he and his community will be seeking answers, and they deserve answers from their representative in this place. But I do say, for the majority in this place—and I stand alongside them—that we stand with Jewish Australians and supporters of Israel. We are with you in the need for justice to be done.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to start by acknowledging that, for many in Australia and around the world, the past week has been deeply traumatic and painful. Violence degrades and weakens the bonds that tie us all together, right when we most need to remember our common humanity. The appalling attack by Hamas last week should be unequivocally condemned, as should all attacks on civilians. The racism, xenophobia, antisemitism, anti-Arab sentiment and Islamophobia that has occurred in Australia over recent days has no place in our society. It's important now more than ever that our response to violence cannot be to fuel more harm and suffering. It cannot be used as a justification to inflict harm on other innocents, and we must not remain silent while this is happening in Gaza. It's in moments of collective pain that politicians need to be steadfast in upholding values of peace and be brave enough to lead. Those elected to this place can provide a path for a better world, especially at dark times like this.</para>
<para>I'd like to briefly read the words of Noy Katsman, whose brother Hayim was tragically and appallingly killed by Hamas:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I want us to support the people who call for calming down and for peace, and for saving lives, not the people who call for more hate and more violence, that's my request to everyone and I know that's exactly what my brother would want to do.</para></quote>
<para>We should reflect on the fact that Noy, who is in pain and grieving a family member, has been able to provide a level of moral clarity that many in this chamber have failed to even reach for.</para>
<para>I want to say this very clearly: cutting off water and food, using phosphorus weapons and bombing schools and hospitals are all war crimes. An estimated 1,000 children in Gaza have already been killed by the Israeli military strikes. Israel has bombed civilians who were fleeing using the routes they said would be safe. Aid workers, paramedics trying to treat the wounded and journalists have lost their lives to indiscriminate fire from the Israeli military. There can be no excuses, justifications or rationalisations for the killing of innocents, and we must not remain silent when we see this violence. It's not defence. UN experts are loudly warning of the war crimes being carried out by the Israeli military in Gaza, with a death toll reaching towards 3,000 and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians displaced. The World Health Organization has made it clear that Israel's demands to evacuate hospitals in Gaza amount to a death sentence for many patients. At this time the people of Gaza have nowhere to flee. For the Palestinian families who endured the first aggression from Israel 75 years ago during the Nakba, the catastrophe must feel never-ending.</para>
<para>No-one is asking this government to judge from afar. People are asking them to see what is occurring in front of our eyes—that is, collective punishment against a whole people, and an escalation of violence and aggression by a state that has a history of apartheid policies. Even before this motion was put forward by the government, Australia was complicit in these ongoing war crimes. Successive Australian governments have ignored the legitimate demands of the Palestinian people for decades, as the Israeli government flouted international law and continued to build illegal settlements and institute an effective apartheid against the Palestinian people. The Australian government has even willingly traded military equipment with Israel, including millions of dollars of Australian weapons exports—Australian weapons that could currently be in use in the crimes and violence in Gaza. Politicians cannot now hide behind platitudes and ignore this asymmetric violence. We have a responsibility to call for peace and an end to the occupation.</para>
<para>This government speaks of concern for regional spillover, but the Israeli military has already bombed domestic airports in Syria. A reporter, Isam Abdullah, was killed by Israeli artillery in Lebanon simply while doing his job. Many from the Iranian community have contacted my office, terrified they're about to enter a multi-country war. Surely, if we were concerned about regional spillover, we would be calling loudly for de-escalation, not providing political cover for war crimes.</para>
<para>This week I joined thousands calling for peace in Sydney. They came out despite threats and intimidation from the police. Thousands of people, including Palestinians and Jewish people, side by side, came out in solidarity with the families in Gaza. People in major cities across this country told this government very clearly that they want peace. It is a testament to its lack of moral compass that the Labor Party leadership in my home state of New South Wales vilified those people who simply wanted to exercise their right to peaceful protest, to show solidarity for those impacted by violence over recent days and to call for peace. Meanwhile, elements of the media in this country compounded the rhetoric and fanned the flames of division between the Jewish and Arab diaspora, leaving Jewish-Australians feeling unsafe and Arab-Australians abandoned.</para>
<para>I've been to Palestine and Israel. I've walked through Israeli military checkpoints, spoken with Palestinian families forced from their homes by illegal settlements and seen Palestinian children tried in Israeli military courts for the crime of being Palestinian. I've also seen the beauty and the strength of the Palestinian people and the courage and the moral strength of those Jewish-Israeli citizens who publicly resist the occupation. Hope and fear live side by side in those lands.</para>
<para>For two decades I have been attending rallies calling for an end to the occupation of the Palestinian territories and for a peace with justice. I do this side by side with my friends in the Palestinian diaspora and the Jewish community. At times like this, I remember the clarity and courage of my former New South Wales parliamentary colleague John Kaye, who so passionately campaigned for Palestinian rights while acknowledging his own proud Jewish heritage. At rally after rally I attended, speakers recounted: the most recent number of those killed in Palestine; the most recent instances of human rights being denied, of homes being bulldozed; the death of a child who could not get the medicine they needed because of a blockade; the death of a mother forced from her home, still holding the key to her front door; prisoners who were taken from their homes in the middle of the night by soldiered and trained attack dogs, held at gunpoint, blindfolded, held without charge for years. Water tanks are only necessary because the Israeli government regularly and without warning denies access to plumbed water to the Palestinian homes being used by target practice by bored Israeli soldiers.</para>
<para>Amidst decades of this grinding, perpetual violence with far too many examples of human rights abuses and war crimes, people have continued to join together and reach across the divide and call for peace, freedom and equality. For too long their calls have been ignored. Let's listen now and act. A commitment to peace and non-violence means meeting the appalling tragedy of a Jewish child killed in Israel with empathy and an unwavering resolve to end the violence. Equally, it means meeting the appalling tragedy of a Palestinian child killed in Gaza with empathy and an unwavering resolve to end the violence. This shared humanity and equal commitment to peace and non-violence are what's missing from this motion. It is what has been missing from the global response for decades, and it is what is needed to finally bring peace with justice and an end to the occupation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senat</name>
    <name.id>144138</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>or PATERSON () (): I want to take the opportunity tonight to perhaps unexpectedly address the Palestinian people and their supporters in Australia. I do so because I have had the opportunity to already express my solidarity with the Jewish community and the people of Israel at two events in Melbourne in the last week. No decent person denies the suffering of Palestinians, especially those in Gaza. No decent person opposes the legitimate aspirations of Palestinians to live in peace, security and prosperity. No decent person questions the understandable anxieties from Australian family and friends for the safety and wellbeing of civilians in Gaza. Every decent person hopes for the peaceful resolution of the long-term conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Where we may differ is who bears the primary responsibility for the conflict that we see today and the desperate circumstances of the people in Gaza. It is often said that Gaza is the world's largest open-air prison. If that is true, then Hamas are the prison wardens keeping innocent civilians incarcerated. And it is not just the 199 citizens of Israel who Hamas is keeping hostage in its war; it's two million Gazans, too. While Israel uses the IDF to defend the citizens of Israel, Hamas uses the people of Gaza to defend itself.</para>
<para>Right now, innocent Gazans are being used as human shields by Hamas for two reasons. Like it has in previous conflicts, Hamas knows that storing its weapons and hiding its fighters among civilian populations in apartment buildings and even in schools and hospitals makes the IDF more cautious in targeting it. Hamas also knows that, if civilians are killed by the IDF when targeting its weapons and fighters, civilian casualties are a powerful propaganda weapon to be wielded against Israel in the debate for global popular opinion. Is it any wonder that, after Israel warned Gazans to move south in advance of a likely ground invasion, Hamas told them to stay put? Hamas told them to stay in harm's way. They know what the consequences of this will be for Palestinian civilians, just as they knew the consequence of their horrific attack last weekend and their decision to not just shoot Jews in the streets and in their homes but to kidnap them back into Gaza as hostages. No democracy could stand by and let that happen. No democracy could spare any effort in trying to recover their citizens. No democracy could accept the ongoing risk of another attack like this happening again. That is why Israel must act. That is why Israel must strike back. That is why Israel must eliminate Hamas. Sadly we know that, when they do, despite the precautions they will take, innocent Gazans will die.</para>
<para>The responsibility for those deaths will lie with Hamas. No-one who has any concern for the humanity of the people of Gaza should defend Hamas. It is, rightly, a listed terrorist organisation here in Australia. Since March 2022, following a recommendation of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security inquiry, which I chaired, it has been listed in its entirety. What the government recognised and the parliament endorsed on a bipartisan basis is that Hamas is a single entity engaged in terror against civilians. Its actions on 7 October demonstrate the wisdom of that decision.</para>
<para>Regrettably, we have seen some Australians seek to defend Hamas and its actions last week. On Sunday 8 October, while Hamas terrorists were still on the loose in Israel, hunting Jews, Sheikh Ibrahim Dadoun spoke at a rally in Lakemba. Among other things, he said to a cheering crowd:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I'm smiling and I'm happy … I'm elated, it's a day of courage, it's a day of resistance, it's a day of pride, it's a day of victory. This is the day we've been waiting for. Seventy-five years of occupation. Fifteen years of blockade. What happened yesterday was the first time our brothers and sisters broke through the largest prison on Earth. This brings pride to the heart …</para></quote>
<para>It cannot be said that this was a rally to condemn an Israeli response which had not even started yet. It was a celebration of the death of innocent men, women, children and the elderly for the crime of being Jewish. If that wasn't bad enough, the following night a rally organised by the Palestine Action Group ended with a group of young men shouting a series of distressing chants, including, 'Gas the Jews!' In Melbourne, one protester carried the portrait of Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the prescribed terrorist organisation Hezbollah. Others at that rally chanted, 'From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,' a call for the eradication of the entire modern state of Israel and its people. I acknowledge some Palestinian Australian leaders have condemned some of this behaviour. At subsequent rallies, protesters were told that behaviour like this was not welcome and would not be tolerated. It is to their credit that they have done so, and they do have an absolute right to peaceful protest, but the incitement to violence that we have seen on our streets in the last fortnight is utterly unacceptable.</para>
<para>Unfortunately, some have tried to defend or excuse it. I was very troubled to read a joint statement purportedly on behalf of Australian Muslims and signed by a number of organisations, including the National Imams Council. Included in that statement is ahistorical nonsense, like the claim that Jewish people were foreign colonisers in Israel. That is despite the fact that Jews have continuously lived in Israel for more than 3,000 years. It pretends that the Jewish people's connection to Israel started in 1947 and it offensively compares the creation of the modern state of Israel to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. It also questions Israel's right to exist and its right to defend itself.</para>
<para>In a free society they are entitled to have views on these issues which others find offensive or wrong. What is more disturbing is the attempted defence of Sheikh Dadoun's inflammatory speech in Western Sydney. The statement seeks to excuse his obvious delight at the murder of innocent Jews by saying that the media's reports of his comments lacked context. In particular, they suggested that the media failed to report his comment 'because this is the first time that Palestinians have broken free from the largest open-air prison on earth'. Many media reports did in fact include this comment, and it in no way minimises the other things that he said, because these Hamas terrorists didn't break free from Gaza to go for a walk. They didn't break free to go to the shops. They didn't break free to go to a restaurant. They broke free to engage in the worst massacre of Jews in a single day since the end of the Holocaust—a slaughter, an atrocity, a pogrom. It was every bit as despicable as anything that ISIS or al-Qaeda have ever done.</para>
<para>Not just are Hamas responsible for the 1,400 Jews and Israelis of other faiths they have already killed; they are responsible for the thousands of Palestinians who've already died and the deaths that we all fear are to come. Whatever your views on the best path forward for peace or the exact future borders between a Palestinian state and Israel, we should be united in this. We should all hope for a day when the people of Gaza are free from Hamas, because there can be no peace with Hamas.</para>
<para>In the weeks ahead, as this conflict sadly continues, let's remember three things: Hamas initiated this attack, Hamas knew what would happen next, and Hamas bears the responsibility for what is happening now. The only responsible and respectable thing to do is to unequivocally condemn Hamas. I hope that all Australians and all senators can do that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>One Nation condemns the atrocities inflicted by the Iran-backed Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist groups on the people of Israel. The aim of these psychotic cowards is not Palestinian statehood. They could not care less about the people living in Gaza or the West Bank. It's been reported that they even use their own wives and children as cannon fodder and human shields. They only care about the destruction of Israel and the murder of every Jew and Christian in the world. It's the stated aim of Hamas. Their attacks last week, which included the deliberate mutilation of innocent children, serve as a reminder that we are never safe from the scourge of Islamic terror. This includes Australia, where Hamas and Hezbollah sympathisers have been demonstrating their support for these atrocities. They have actually celebrated the mutilation and murder of children and the kidnapping and execution of civilians.</para>
<para>You can't say you weren't warned about these disgusting creatures. I told you not to allow these extremists to come to Australia and import their ideology of hate. But Labor let them come anyway. As a result, the world has now been treated to the appalling spectacle of these extremists demonstrating, on the steps of the Sydney Opera House, explicit support of terrorism and murder and calling for the gassing of Jews. These terrorist sympathisers do not belong in Australia. They belong in Gaza, standing side by side with the cowardly killers they cheered for, to reap the whirlwind that is about to come crashing down on them. As I have said many times, we are too quick to hand out citizenship. People must prove they are worthy to be Australian citizens and not bring the hate, civil wars and ideologies that have no place here.</para>
<para>Israel has no choice but to respond to these atrocities with all the power and force it can muster. There can be no lasting peace with Islamic terrorists. Israel has repeatedly offered the hand of peace in the Middle East, including the offer of an independent Palestinian state. The only response has been terrorism, so Israel must eliminate the scourge of terrorism that threatens its very existence. We can leave that to the Israelis, I think. They have been fighting for survival against enormous odds for 75 years, and I expect they will prevail. The priority for Australian leaders is to offer our fellow democracy all possible material and moral support to ensure the safety of Australian citizens in the conflict area and to eliminate the support for Islamic terrorism and antisemitism which has so embarrassed Australia on the world stage.</para>
<para>Australia must also re-examine its relationship with the regime in Iran, the financier and supplier of Islamic terror across the world. At the very least, our diplomatic presence in Tehran must be withdrawn and any Iranian diplomats should be expelled from our country. There is already strong evidence that Iranians who have escaped that country's terrorist regime are being stalked and threatened in Australia by the regime. There is no place for that in our nation, just as there is no place in Australia for sick minds calling for the gassing of Jews. There is no place in this parliament for those who have also expressed support for this terror. You know who you are—Minister Tony Burke, Minister Chris Bowen, Senator Thorpe and the Greens. One Nation will be reminding Australian voters when the time comes.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hanson, I'll just remind you about personal reflections on members of the House, which are disorderly, and ask you to curtail your remarks accordingly.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, Acting Deputy President. One Nation supports the government's motion on these terrorist attacks in principle, but we note it doesn't go far enough and doesn't address the central role Iran has played in this terrorism. One Nation stands against any form of terrorism. Taking sides is not the answer. Working towards a peaceful solution is.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHANDLER</name>
    <name.id>264449</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On 7 October, Hamas terrorists perpetrated against Israel one of the most barbaric, horrific terrorist attacks the world has ever seen. Their targets were innocent civilians. They sought out children, the elderly, women and families and slaughtered them in cold blood. They raped women. They mutilated bodies. They burned innocent people alive. More than 1,300 Israelis and foreign nationals were murdered. They kidnapped and took hostage hundreds of others to be tortured and used as human shields. These are acts of pure evil. For the vast majority of Australians, no excuse and no justification are possible or acceptable. No nation and no people should ever have to bear the cold-blooded murder of innocent civilians.</para>
<para>After the horrors of the Holocaust, the world promised the Jewish people: never again. The difficult truth is that now we have to ask ourselves how seriously the world meant that promise. The reality is that, for many years, the world has known that, each and every day, Israel has faced the daily prospect of deranged, hateful terrorists who openly profess their desire to kill Jews. Day in and day out, Israel is forced to intercept terrorists and thwart terror attacks intended to murder innocent Jews. When the terrorists of Hamas succeed, innocent Israelis are killed and there are celebrations in Gaza and the West Bank.</para>
<para>It is, to me, and, I know, to many others in this parliament, unfathomable that some in our community cannot bring themselves to offer their undivided sympathy and support to Israeli families who are mourning the slaughter of their mothers, their daughters, their fathers and their sons. I am appalled to hear, on the street of our cities here in Australia, antisemitic chants that we thought we would never hear outside of Nazi Germany or the strongholds of Islamist terror. I am devastated that Jewish Australians are now afraid to walk our streets and that families are afraid to send their children to school. I fear for Western societies, including our own country, where the reaction by some to the mass murder of Jewish people is to hold rallies designed not to condemn Hamas but to condemn Israel.</para>
<para>Let us be very clear: it is Hamas that holds Gaza and innocent civilians in Gaza hostage. It is Hamas that uses civilians and hostages as human shields. It is Hamas that has taken hundreds of Israeli citizens into Gaza and refused to release them. How dare anybody say that this is not about Hamas. How dare anyone refuse to blame the terrorists who slaughtered 1,300 innocent civilians, but, instead, blame the victims.</para>
<para>The scale and the depravity of the 7 October terror attacks shocked the vast majority of the world. But we cannot ignore the fact that, while most of us mourned, there were some—including here in Australia—who celebrated. Really, we have no excuse for being shocked that antisemitism is once again reaching its tentacles into political parties, universities and dark corners of our society, because our Jewish community here has been warning us about this for years.</para>
<para>The world has also known for years that the Islamic Republic of Iran provides hundreds of millions of dollars to the terror groups Hamas, Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The IRGC helps train and support their proxies to attack and kill Israelis. The purpose of this Iranian funding and support to Hamas is very clear. It is to enable Hamas to kill Jews. Over many years, the IRI regime has cultivated and resourced a network of terrorist proxies, which are bound together by their hatred of Jews and a willingness to take money and advice from Iran in order to achieve a shared goal of causing death, pain and suffering to Israeli citizens. Nobody gains from these terror attacks by Hamas more than the IRI regime.</para>
<para>A multitude of analysts and experts have, for many months, warned that the regime was building up the capacity of its terrorist proxies to mount attacks on Israel. Yet the regime—which murders its own people, funds terror against Israel and across the region, and intimidates and threatens its critics across the world, including here in Australia—has not been isolated by the world as it should have been and has instead gained influence. Let us not forget: in three weeks time, the regime's representative, having been appointed, will chair the United Nations Human Rights Council's Social Forum. Iran has collected to their side allies like Vladimir Putin, and they are now using anti-Israeli sentiment to convince more nations to side with them. The same anti-Israel sentiment we have sadly witnessed on our streets and on our airwaves is helping the largest state sponsor of terrorism to build its support and achieve its goal.</para>
<para>The IRI regime openly celebrated the murder of 1,300 innocent civilians in Israel. The Iranian ambassador in Australia has posted to social media, describing one of the most horrific terror attacks the world has ever witnessed as 'a Palestinian jailbreak out of an open-air prison called Gaza'. We've heard this exact talking point from others in Australia since 7 October, and it is nothing short of seeking to justify and celebrate terror. Dangerous rhetoric is being spread here in Australia by the Islamic Republic regime, openly blaming Israel for the barbaric actions of Hamas, a proscribed terrorist group which the IRI regime funds and coordinates with. Why has such an obviously dangerous and antisemitic regime been allowed to enjoy the status and perks of powerful government? To prevent terrorism, we must not turn a blind eye to the tactics and propaganda of those who fund and support it. To stand with the Jewish community, we cannot accept any form of support for Hamas or any form of intimidation or threat against the Jewish community in Australia.</para>
<para>In concluding my remarks here this evening, I want to reflect on my time in Israel in 2019. I have walked the streets of Sderot and seen rocket shelters built in playgrounds to protect children. Back when I was there, just four years ago, I hoped against hope that they would never be used. In 2023, sustained rocket fire is, tragically, far from the worst thing that the people of Sderot have had to endure. I visited the town of Metula, close to the border with Lebanon, nestled amongst the beautiful mountains, and I have seen and felt the trepidation in that community because of their proximity to the tentacles of Hezbollah. Again, that trepidation was clear in 2019. I cannot begin to imagine how the people of Metula are feeling tonight. I stand with Israel, as we all should in this place, and I stand with our Jewish community here in Australia. I say to them: you have many friends in this parliament, and I am so proud to be one of them.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I speak to the motion that Senator Wong moved yesterday on Hamas attacks on Israel and the ongoing conflict. Firstly, though, I briefly mention the minister's answer to my first supplementary question in question time yesterday. I asked about remarks the minister had made to the media in a press conference where the minister restated and amplified remarks that were made earlier in the day to the children of Cheng Lei, an Australian and Chinese citizen who is back in Australia following a period of incarceration in China, having concluded her sentence in prison. I am, of course, very pleased to see Cheng Lei free and reunited with her family, yet the minister chose to spin my question in a way that contradicted the events of the press conference, apparently to avoid actually answering my question. The minister's comments were widely reported after her press conference. Responding to me yesterday, as the minister did, by invoking a motion was an inappropriate and false reflection.</para>
<para>Turning to this motion on Hamas, I fully support Senator Wong's motion and her speech on the matter yesterday. Her speech was balanced, reasoned and befitting of an Australian foreign minister. It's true that the actions of radicals have caused untold death and suffering on both sides of the conflict. The minister said what needs to be said, and I refer everyone to her speech. The content, clarity and quality of her speech means I only have one point to add. There's a chance this conflict could escalate to a catastrophic war, and the need to avoid that happening must be paramount in the minds of all involved. We have seen many such conflicts over the years, and there's one truth from them all: the sooner a ceasefire is declared, hostages are released and both sides sit down and talk to each other, the faster the suffering can be brought to an end. May peace be with us all soon.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Hamas has started the first pogrom of the 21st century. Unless Hamas is wiped from the face of the earth, it won't be the last pogrom. With terror not seen since the Holocaust, Hamas, modern day nazi savages, have unleashed a wall of violence against the free people of Israel. As I speak, Israel is fighting for her existence. Israelis are fighting for their lives. Hundreds are held hostage, but in a way we—Palestinians, Israelis, Australians—are all hostages of Hamas. Unless Hamas is destroyed, the eye we turn towards Israel will close upon our own morality.</para>
<para>To the people of Israel, Australia stands for you and Australia stands with you. Democracy, freedom and liberty must always be defended. Australia condemns the hate of Hamas. We condemn the beheading of babies, we condemn the murder of families, we condemn the massacre of young people dancing in the desert and we condemn the murder of all who died.</para>
<para>Yet what is louder than the anguished cries of Australians shouting our anger at the pogrom of Jews? It is silence—the silence of those who do not condemn and the silence of those who offer weak, meaningless, grey words. The Greens and teals bring shame upon parliament, shame upon their political platform and shame upon Australia. The former foreign minister, Bob Carr, brings shame while chairing the Crescent Foundation—a charity—when he fails to condemn the murder of children. He brings shame by calling the Hamas pogrom 'a tactical success'. Even louder were the chants of the bigots on the steps of the Sydney Opera House—'Gas the Jews;' 'Eff the Jews.' Let me repeat those words that should not be said: 'Gas the Jews;' 'Eff the Jews.' These words, which do not belong in Australia, were shouted in glee by those who do not belong in Australia.</para>
<para>Israel, Australia stands with you and Australia stands for you. Hamas did their worst. Israel, do your best.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUGHES</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to acknowledge Senator McGrath's outstanding contribution. I, too, rise tonight in support of the government's motion and to speak on the ongoing conflict in Gaza and the heinous Hamas attacks that have been perpetrated on Israeli civilians. Save for a few individuals consumed by their own hatred and lost to the narrative of perpetual victimhood, it has largely been encouraging to see bipartisan support, in keeping with the longstanding tradition of standing with Israel during the many periods of adversity that she has faced in her short existence.</para>
<para>I don't pretend that I'm an expert on the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Like all of us here, we don't like witnessing the needless loss of life of women and children and of civilians and we don't like witnessing families torn apart and communities destroyed—both Palestinian and Israeli. It is a tragedy when conflicts such as these occur anywhere in the world.</para>
<para>But what we have seen has, frankly, been sickening, with the lightning speed with which some members of the Australian public, and even some members in this place and the other place, have jumped at the opportunity to criticise Israel for its response and—strangely—even more quickly to defend and, in some truly disgusting cases, to celebrate the plight of terrorists.</para>
<para>Hamas is officially a terror organisation. Hamas has deliberately inflicted death and savagery of the worst kind not on the IDF but on civilians, on their sworn enemies, on people who couldn't defend themselves, on families, on young people at a music festival and on babies. That's something I genuinely cannot get my head around. It is absolute monstrous barbarity at its worst. The chants of, 'Gas the Jews,' 'Eff the Jews,' and, 'Eff Israel,' at a Sydney rally at the Opera House are incomprehensible. This blatant antisemitic hate speech should never be heard.</para>
<para>To anyone who is resorting to whataboutism, I strongly suggest you reflect on what you're implying by rushing to that position without carefully considering the nuance of the situation. This is not a question of whether there are questions to be asked of Palestinian treatment or plight. This is not a moment in which to examine socioeconomic inequalities. This was simply about calling out a terrorist act perpetrated by terrorists for their express goal of bringing death, destruction and fear to a longstanding enemy. It was most likely designed to goad this very type of retaliatory response from Israel, with the implicit desire to demonise Israel when civilians inevitably die on both sides. It is Hamas that should be condemned, unilaterally and universally. It is Hezbollah. It is Iran. It is the sympathisers that we should be calling out with steeled resolve. This actually is a moment for intolerance—intolerance of this vile position and support for terrorism.</para>
<para>If we were so quick to shut off Russia's access to finance and engagement in global community, if we were so quick to condemn their war with Ukraine, how can anyone be sympathetic to Hamas? They are terrorists. These people are not simple. They're not stupid. They knew exactly what they were doing.</para>
<para>They've actually been educated by the UN. I know many of you would be surprised to learn that, in the UNRWA that is embedded within Palestine, there are anti-Semitic-at-heart educators who educate kids on the dislike, mistrust, hatred of and desire to eradicate the Jews. It's actually ingrained in their syllabus. An insane part, just one part, is that the UN is aware of it and defends it by saying that many of their teachers were refugees themselves and therefore still carry the trauma of their hatred, which they pass down to the next generation. So the conflict never ceases. Why? How? How can the UN be complicit in this? How do they support a curriculum that teaches Palestine is in fact the land of Israel? This can only be seen as supporting the erasure of Israel, a member state of the UN.</para>
<para>For those who don't believe this is possible, I thought I would include a couple of examples of the integration of anti-Semitism and radicalisation in the Palestinian education system. The indoctrination of Palestinian kids for Israeli hatred has been so totally kneaded into the fabric of the curriculum that even learning grammar and punctuation has some form of propaganda included.</para>
<para>One of the schools examined in a report into the UNRWA was the Asma Middle School for Girls, where the schoolgirls were taught to liberate their homeland by sacrificing 'their blood' and pursuing jihad. This is an example from one of their workbooks: 'Read the following sentences and explain why the hamza'—which is an orthographic sign in Arabic—'is written on the words,' and option 3 is, 'I will commit jihad to liberate the homeland.' The school also had students examine a text called 'My land'. This was question 11: 'What are the obligations of the people of the homeland towards it?' The answer is: 'That they would defend it and sacrifice for it their blood, their possessions and the most precious thing they have.'</para>
<para>In February 2022, Tel Al-Hawa Middle School 7th grade boys were taught a poem from a Palestinian textbook: 'The enemy is despicable, Palestine is ours. The departure of the occupier from our land is inevitable. We shall oppose the enemy's tanks with blood and flesh.' This United Nations Relief and Works Agency Islamic education exam asked students to mark true or false that 'Liberating the Al-Aqsa Mosque and making sacrifices for it is an obligation of all Muslims,' with the correct answer being true.</para>
<para>Even in their studies on literary techniques and devices can you find this sort of pervasive propaganda. For example, 'Let's explain the beauty of the metaphor in the following: The Zionist gangs their fangs of hatred into her pure body.' This is a United Nations approved examination! But it is not hard to believe that they do that, because there are also scores of teachers and educators that belong to and are employed by the UNRWA that have been found to be supporting terror acts, anti-Semitism and even Hitler on their social media.</para>
<para>I have a number of examples of that, but I will just run through some very quick ones. Riad Nimer, who is a teacher with UNRWA, liked to post praising the gruesome Jerusalem synagogue axe and shooting attack in which two Palestinian terrorists murdered five Jewish worshippers and a responding Jewish police officer with axes, knives and a gun. The translation of the post that he liked was 'When they ram us, they will be rammed. When they stab us, they will be stabbed. When they hang us, they will be hanged. The axe is extra. This is Jerusalem. These are fortresses of the revolutionaries. This is the fortress of the suicide attackers and the heroes. A unique and heroic act of self-sacrifice—suicide attack—in occupied Jerusalem. The initial harvest: seven bodies and 17 wounded.'</para>
<para>Zaher Fanous, another teacher with the UNRWA shared a video praising a teenage Palestinian boy who attacks Israeli soldiers with stones as 'righteous a hero'. By deeming the Palestinian teenager a hero, the post encourages children to engage in violence.</para>
<para>Labibeh Iskandarani, another UNRWA employee, in October 2017 posted a photo of Hitler with a caption calling on him to wake up because 'there are still people you need to burn'. In the Facebook post she apologises to Hitler. Notably, three UNRWA employees liked the post. Iskandarani also liked two comments by the employees endorsing the post. The UNRWA routinely minimises its staff neutrality violations on social media and in the classroom. While the UNRWA insists it has a zero-tolerance policy for hatred and antisemetism, the agency has refused to acknowledge the more serious issue of hiring antisemetic and terror-supporting staff in the first place.</para>
<para>To come back to the issue at hand, when Israel is surrounded by enemies on every side, when there is such deep hatred for its very existence, is it any wonder that they're able to stand proudly at all? And yet it holds on, yet it continues. I will, like many of my colleagues, stand here every day voicing my support for one of the few Middle Eastern nations that respects the rules based order, that's incredibly progressive. Tel Aviv is very modern, progressive city. The IDF has serving women. Do you think Palestine or Hamas has a very welcome rainbow policy for the LGBT community? Tel Aviv does.</para>
<para>Yesterday, in a most disgraceful action, we saw the teal MP, Sophie Scamps, the member for Mackellar, and Kylie Tink, the member for North Sydney, join forces with the Greens to amend a bipartisan motion condemning Hamas's actions in an attempt to accuse Israel of war crimeless. After all their moral posturing during the Voice referendum claiming to be on the right side of history and doing the right thing, who purport to be the moral superiors of the majority of the population, they have now shown us how morally bankrupt they are. To believe there's an equivalence between the action of a terrorist organisation who brutally slaughtered 1,400 innocent Israeli citizens and the actions of the Israeli state in response to this terror, to suggest Israel must use restraint when it is Hamas hiding behind its own civilians has exposed the true moral insanity of the Teals. This is just another example, showing how disconnected the Teals truly are in their privileged bubbles in the beachside and inner-city suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne. I think perhaps it's time for some of them to visit Israel. Perhaps, when they do, they may get to understand that the Palestinians maintain a pay-for-slay policy, where the families of martyrs who kill Jewish civilians are paid an ongoing allowance for the murders that they commit. Within Palestine, in Ramallah in the West Bank, there are monuments erected to acknowledge and pay tribute to martyrs who have killed Jewish civilians. To listen to anyone who says that Palestine and the Palestinians are committed to a peace process while maintaining a pay-for-slay policy is simply ludicrous</para>
<para>But we must remember it was Hamas whose actions have instigated this recent tension. It's Hamas that has no qualms about its people dying if it stirs up further hatred and mobilises the community against Israel. It is Hamas that entrenches itself in the hearts of civilian populations to goad Israel into attacks on the innocent. It is Hamas that denies opportunities for a ceasefire and peace. I really, in some ways, feel it's disgraceful that we need to be having this conversation instead of standing united against a terror organisation, regardless of the very nuanced positions and perspectives on the conflict itself, which we could have discussed and dealt with at a later date, when appropriate. But instead the closeted antisemitism masquerading as concern for Palestinian civilians has reared its ugly head. Tonight I was absolutely appalled to see that the <inline font-style="italic">7.30</inline> program, just a couple of hours ago, hosted an interview with the head of international relations for Hamas. A recognised terror organisation, and our national broadcaster gave them validity and legitimacy by hosting an interview with the head of international relations. It is extraordinary that Hamas has a head of international relations, but this is the world we live in. But the fact that the ABC gave them airtime tonight is just beyond comprehension. But, when it comes to antisemitism, I will call it out every time I see it. I am pro-Israel and I am a Zionist and I won't be cowering to any of these leftie nut jobs, and the Australian people shouldn't either. We should call it out every time we see it. I know I will.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BROCKMAN</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise tonight to make a contribution on this motion and to associate myself particularly with the comments of all my colleagues who have spoken this evening. I have learnt things tonight. I have learnt things from the contribution that Senator Hughes just made. I think it is important at times like this that we do try to listen to the contributions that our colleagues make, particularly on matters like these, where many of us are not experts and do not claim to be experts.</para>
<para>I remember, when I was a young fella, my parents talking about something that had happened a long way away. I had no idea where it was, but a plane had been hijacked—I probably didn't even really understand what that meant—and flown to another country. I understood later that it was hijacked by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. It was an Air France plane. It had 90 Israelis on board and around 150 people from other nations. It was flown to the airport at Entebbe, and subsequently Israeli commandos launched a successful rescue mission. There were deaths involved, but it was a highly successful rescue mission. But I remember thinking, as a young fella, 'Why would people do this?' It was inexplicable to me. I think the saddest thing is that, 40-something years later, terrorism remains inexplicably evil. Terrorism is violence to instil fear to supposedly achieve a political aim. Violence, fear, politics—they are words that should never appear together.</para>
<para>Terrorism should always be condemned unequivocally—no weasel words, no false equivalencies. Hamas's attack on Israel was an inhumane attack upon innocent civilians. Hamas's attack on Israel was a terrorist attack. It was bloody. It was brutal. It was the murder of unarmed men, women, children, babies, the old and the young, the strong and the weak. It was indiscriminate and brutal. Of course Israel has every right to defend itself against this attack and any future attacks and should be supported by other Western nations, other Western democracies, like Australia.</para>
<para>We've seen antisemitism on display outside the Sydney Opera House, something that we should also condemn, and we do. But I want to say to the Jewish community and the Israeli community in Australia that the vast, vast majority of Australians reject that antisemitism and the violence it represents. Today I rise to join with my colleagues and say that we stand with Israel and we stand with Australia's Jewish community.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HENDERSON</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to unequivocally support this motion before the Senate. The terrorist attacks on the people of Israel by the terrorist group Hamas are murderous, abhorrent and the embodiment of evil. I condemn Hamas in the strongest possible terms. There is no justification, no excuse, nothing to justify this slaughter which began on 7 October and continues. This could be a long war. Let us hope and pray that good triumphs over evil as soon as possible.</para>
<para>Israel not only has a right to defend itself and protect its people, innocent men, women, grandparents, children and babies; it has an obligation. Hamas is a genocidal terrorist organisation. It poses a threat to the entire world. The coalition supports Israel's right to do what is necessary with every asset available to safeguard its sovereignty, bolster its borders, protect its people and thwart threats it now faces.</para>
<para>The words which describe the worst crimes imaginable committed by Hamas terrorists are difficult to read, let alone speak: the cold-blooded murder of young Israelis attending a music festival; the beheading of babies; the kidnapping and torture of families; the slaughter of a young girl in front of her parents and younger brother and sister. The video of the sobbing Israeli father who said the death of his daughter Emily was a blessing compared with the inhumane and depraved torture and brutality she faced at the hands of Hamas if she had remained alive is just heartbreaking. I also condemn Hamas' acts of inhumanity which have prevented the people of Gaza from fleeing to safety. These innocent Palestinians have been used as nothing more than human shields. Hamas is responsible for all deaths in what is becoming a full-blown war.</para>
<para>At this most difficult time, words matter. This motion sends the strongest of messages to the world that we stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Israel and with the Jewish community here in Australia. This motion is in contrast to attempts by the Greens, along with the members for Mackellar and North Sydney in the other place, to amend the motion in the other place so as to condemn Israel for committing war crimes. There is no moral equivalence between the evil acts of Hamas and the right of Israel to defend itself in accordance with international law.</para>
<para>In Lakemba and at the Sydney Opera House, Australians witnessed scenes of protesters celebrating Hamas—vile antisemitic behaviour, celebrations of evil and cold-blooded murder. As the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton, has so powerfully argued, people who are non-citizens on visas and who are engaged in vile antisemitic behaviour, who are inciting violence or who choose violence, should have their visas cancelled and be promptly deported from our country. There must be the most serious consequences for this hateful criminal speech, which includes sickening, vile chants of 'gas the Jews'. As the shadow minister for education, I place on record my deep concern for the safety and security of Jewish students and their families, Jewish students who attend schools and universities, and for the safety and security of the families of children who attend Jewish childcare centres.</para>
<para>The recent Australian Jewish university experience survey found that 64 per cent of Jewish students have experienced at least one incident of antisemitism during their time at university, with 88 per cent of those students experiencing antisemitism in the past 12 months. According to the survey, more than half of Jewish students have hidden their identity on campus to avoid antisemitism, with many students avoiding campus altogether. We already have an entrenched dire situation on Australian university campuses, and that is now much worse.</para>
<para>Last week a group of students gathered at Sydney university displaying signs claiming that Palestinians are right to resist and that Australia and the United States were backers of Israeli terror. I'm advised that Jewish students complained to the university campus security office and were told no action would be taken. This is completely unacceptable.</para>
<para>There have been other incidents that have given rise to Australian Jewish families not feeling that it's safe for their children to attend a Jewish school, to wear the uniform of their school or to wear dress that indicates their religion. This is completely unacceptable. Every Australian has a right to feel safe in their own country.</para>
<para>I have written a number of letters to the Minister for Education raising my concerns about the protection of Jewish students. I am very pleased with the minister's response, including the measures the government is taking. I do appreciate that the government has provided additional money for the Securing Faith-Based Places program. The delivery of this program is being fast-tracked. I trust that funding for security measures for Jewish educational institutions, along with university campuses facing particular safety challenges, can be prioritised as a matter of urgency. I join with all senators in this place in saying that we stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Israel and with the Jewish Australian community.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ASKEW</name>
    <name.id>281558</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise tonight to make a brief contribution in support of the motion regarding the Hamas attacks on Israel and the ongoing conflict that is affecting thousands of people, noting also that I do not support the amendment moved by the Australian Greens. I thank so many of my colleagues in this place for their heartfelt and significant contributions to this debate. The widespread condemnation expressed within the Australian parliament must provide comfort to the Israeli families living here in Australia who are worried about their family and friends living through the dreadful atrocities in their homeland.</para>
<para>We have all watched in horror as this conflict unfolds, seeing the disturbing death toll rising each day and knowing that this is a chilling act of terrorism perpetuated by an evil organisation. The shocking images I have seen on television and the abhorrent acts I've read about in the past 10 days are incredibly distressing. However, this situation also has personal meaning for me. I have friends who have been working tirelessly in Israel to help those impacted by these Hamas attacks. On the one hand I am proud to see them providing support to those in need at this terrible time but on the other hand I just want to know that they're safe and that no harm will come to them—that they too will be able to return safely to their families here in Australia in the future. This sad dichotomy has arisen due to these inhumane acts that no-one should endure.</para>
<para>Let me be clear: I do not support terrorism in any form, which is exactly what these attacks are. There is no justification for the brutality that Hamas has committed against innocent people, including Australians. Forcing people to live in fear like this is reprehensible. I do support Israel's right to defend itself against such an act of terrorism. As a citizen of a country where we enjoy democratic freedoms not permitted by the likes of Hamas, I stand with the coalition and the Australian government in supporting Israel's efforts to protect its population against such acts. Israel, our parliament stands with you against this atrocity.</para>
<para>In acknowledging Israel has the right to defend itself against such terrorism, the coalition recognises it is fitting that Israel should act against the direct and violent threat to its people. Hamas presents such a threat to Israel's people, but it also presents a threat to democracy as we know and understand it. Hamas should not hold a position of power or influence. If this region is to know peace, Hamas must be disabled from any ability to continue its acts of terrorism. The former coalition government, of which I was part, recognised Hamas as a terrorist organisation, which its members have only confirmed by perpetuating these attacks on innocent people. Other countries have recognised this too, and we stand with Israel against Hamas.</para>
<para>We know Israel's battle against Hamas's evil power will be a very hard road. We know these latest attacks are part of a long history of terrorism. We want all Israelis to know that they do not walk this road alone and that Australia continues to support Israel in its battles against these evil acts. My heart goes out to all affected by this extreme act of terrorism. So many innocent people have lost their lives, lost loved ones or been injured and uprooted from their homes during these attacks. I cannot imagine the horror and fear they have felt and are still experiencing as this war continues.</para>
<para>In closing, I repeat the following from Senator Birmingham's contribution in this place yesterday:</para>
<quote><para class="block">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.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to give my wholehearted support to the motion before the Senate. In doing so, I would like to commence this contribution by quoting from the powerful words of the president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. On 12 October 2023, President Jillian Segal addressed the crowd of approximately 10,000 members of the Australian Jewish community and the broader community who gathered to show solidarity with Israel:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Last Shabbat, October 7, 2023—another date that will live in infamy—Israel was suddenly and deliberately attacked by Hamas terrorists, by land, sea and air.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The butchery and savagery that has unfolded in Israel beggars description. Jews were hunted down and murdered in their homes and on the streets. Infants were beheaded in their beds. . Women were raped. The dead were desecrated. Hostages were degraded in public. Whole communities were decimated and buildings burnt to the ground</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Not since the Holocaust have so many Jewish lives been taken in a single day.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We are totally shattered as we stand together this evening, mourning the 900 or more innocent lives lost, and praying for the speedy recovery of the injured and the safe release of all of the hostages.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">If we had thought that the barbarity of the Holocaust would not happen again, the events of the weekend have demonstrated to the whole world that when Hamas proclaims that it intends to obliterate Israel and its Jewish population, it means what it says.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Hamas, and its backers in Tehran, like ISIS, have once again proved that they are utterly lacking in any concept of the sanctity of human life. There can be no compromise or accommodation with these psychopaths. They must be crushed, and we must brace ourselves for further tragedy.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">But we are also filled with a new resolve and a hardened determination. We are fortified by the outpouring of sympathy and support for Israel and our Jewish community from our political leaders, other ethnic and faith communities and hundreds and hundreds of good people from all across Australia, unprecedented since the Six Day War in 1967. Thank you all from the bottom of our hearts.</para></quote>
<para>I would say to our Australian Jewish community and to the president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry: I was there with you in spirit when you gave that speech on 12 October 2023.</para>
<para>Now I'm proud to rise in this place to associate myself with the contributions that have been made both by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Penny Wong, and by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Simon Birmingham, in relation to the bipartisan support which has been provided in relation to this resolution. This resolution:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… 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;</para></quote>
<para>Clause (b) of this resolution says the Senate:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… stands with Israel and recognises its inherent right to defend itself;</para></quote>
<para>I want to pause for a moment in relation to that second clause, paragraph (b), under which it's proposed that the Senate stands with Israel and recognises its inherent right to defend itself. It is that clause which the Australian Greens in this place seek to omit and to replace with a clause which seeks to condemn Israel at this of all times. It is a disgraceful amendment being put forward by the Australian Greens, and it follows the actions in the House of Representatives by members of the Australian Greens supported by Ms Tink MP, Dr Scamps MP and Mr Wilkie MP. There were seven members of the House of Representatives who supported that amendment. That's seven members of the House of Representatives who wanted to remove that clause in this resolution saying that Australia stands with Israel and recognises its inherent right to defend itself. Out of those seven, three were Queensland representatives. I make this commitment here and now to remind the electors of the seats of those three Australian Greens every day between now and the election of the position those members took at this point in time. I will remind the electors of Ryan of the position of Ms Elizabeth Watson-Brown MP, who sought to deny in this resolution paragraph (b), which provides recognition of the inherent right of Israel to defend itself. I will remind the electors of the federal seat of Brisbane that Mr Bates MP sought to deny paragraph (b), regarding Israel's inherent right to defend itself. And I will remind the electors in the seat of Griffith that Mr Chandler-Mather sought to deny Israel's inherent right to defend itself.</para>
<para>That inherent right is not just a legal right; it is a moral imperative that was born in the aftermath of the gas chambers and ovens of Auschwitz, where one million Jews lost their lives. It is a moral imperative born in the ravine of Babi Yar near modern day Kyiv, where Einsatzgruppe C butchered 33,771 Jews between 29 and 30 September 1941. It is a moral imperative arising from the banks of the Danube, where Jews were murdered by the fascists of the Arrow Cross movement in Hungary. The Greens amendment sought to obliterate that moral right of the modern state of Israel to defend itself. Their amendment is an absolute abomination. The Greens senators in this place should reflect very, very carefully before they proceed with the amendment in this place. They should reconsider their amendment. Israel of course has the right to defend itself.</para>
<para>In an opinion piece in the <inline font-style="italic">Washington Post</inline>, a famous human rights activist, Russian refusenik and former political prisoner of the Soviet Union, Mr Natan Sharansky, who is chairman of advisory boards of the Combat Antisemitism Movement and the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy, wrote about Israel's right to defend itself. This is what he said, and how right he is:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It is only a matter of weeks, or days, or even hours until articles will appear in major publications depicting the Israeli government as indiscriminately targeting innocent Palestinians. Human Rights Watch will yet again vilify Israel as an international outlaw, and the United Nations will pass resolutions demanding that we cease our war of self-defense.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I was a member of Israel's security cabinet when we made crucial decisions about how to fight terror during the second intifada in the early 2000s, at a time when hundreds of Israeli civilians were targeted and killed simply for living in the Jewish state. At that time, I also had regular conversations with my colleagues in the U.S. government about how they handled such asymmetric warfare.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In light of these experiences, I know with certainty that Israel expends more effort than any other country during wartime in trying to minimize harm to innocent civilians on the enemy side. These tools include special warning missiles and even text messages and phone calls, in addition to thorough pilot training and other measures, designed to warn Palestinian civilians of pending attacks and to give them time to get to safety.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Hamas terrorists, by contrast, position themselves and their weaponry in heavily populated areas, including in mosques, hospitals and schools, confident that every innocent person killed is another propaganda victory.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The only way to help neutralize this despicable unconventional weapon in the coming days would be for leaders of Western democracies and responsible Arab rulers to make this message absolutely clear: Every innocent Palestinian killed in this conflagration is the victim of Hamas.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The horrific events of this past Saturday can have no silver lining, but the world would benefit immeasurably if the attack were to prompt free nations, together with leading human rights organizations, to finally unite completely in the fight against terrorism—and in the belief that every state, Jewish or not, has the right to defend itself against the indiscriminate murder of its citizens.</para></quote>
<para>That's Mr Natan Sharansky, the famous Russian refusenik, in relation to Israel's right to defend itself.</para>
<para>I am honoured to have the opportunity in the Senate this evening to stand by Israel at this time of need, and Australia stands by Israel. The vast majority of Australians stand by Israel, just as we stood by Israel at the time of its creation and just as we stood by Israel when we voted against UN resolution 3379 in 1975, which equated Zionism with racism. We were one of 35 countries around the world who voted against that vile resolution. We stand by Israel today as it exercises its legal right to defend itself against the evil terrorist attacks launched by Hamas on 7 October 2023. Again, I call upon the Australian Greens to reconsider their amendment in this chamber to this resolution. I ask them to reconsider that amendment—to withdraw that amendment—so that this chamber can give a unanimous response of support to Israel at the time of its greatest need.</para>
<para>I should also say that I have been contacted by members of the Muslim community. People who know me well know that I consider myself a friend of both the Jewish community and the Muslim community in Queensland. Perhaps the best way to summarise my thinking in this regard is to tell a story, in concluding this contribution. It is a story of one of the members of Yad Vashem, the Righteous Among Nations—a Muslim man, by the name of Ali Sheqer Pashkaj. This is the story, as told by his son, of how Mr Ali Sheqer Pashkaj, a Muslim, saved a Jew during World War II during the Holocaust:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Our traditional home is in Puke. My father owned a general store with food provisions … One day a German transport rolled by with nineteen Albanian prisoners on their way to hard labor, and one Jew who was to be shot.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">My father spoke excellent German and invited the Nazis into his store and offered them food and wine. He plied them with wine until they became drunk.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Meanwhile he hid a note in a piece of melon and gave it to the young Jew. It instructed him to jump out and flee into the woods to a designated place. The Nazis were furious over the escape, but my father claimed innocence. They brought my father into the village and lined him up against a wall to extract information about where the Jew was hiding.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Four times they put a gun to his head. They came back and threatened to burn down the village if my father didn't confess. My father held out, and finally they left. My father retrieved the man from the forest and hid him for two years in his home until the war was over. His name was Yeoshua Baruchowic. There were thirty families in the village, but no one knew that my father was sheltering a Jew. Yeoshua is still alive. He is a dentist and lives in Mexico.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Why did my father save a stranger at the risk of his life and the entire village? My father was a devout Muslim. He believed that to save one life is to enter paradise.</para></quote>
<para>That is the story of Ali Sheqer Pashkaj as told by his son, Enver alia Sheqer. On 18 March 2002, Yad Vashem recognised Ali Sheqer Pashkaj as 'Righteous Among the Nations'.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CANAVAN</name>
    <name.id>245212</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to support this motion and, in doing so, express my deep condolences to the Jewish community of Australia and the people of Israel, who have suffered perhaps the most barbaric attacks that we have seen this century. So many innocent lives have been lost and a deep wound for our Jewish community has been opened by pure evil over the past couple of weeks.</para>
<para>I recognise that for the Jewish community these are very painful times. This has shocked people around the world, but it has most impacted those who have a long history of suffering as a people and have striven so hard to find themselves and create a peaceful and democratic homeland. It is a homeland that was created in response to the evil pogroms of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but it has now not provided the peace that they have so long striven for into the 21st century.</para>
<para>I want to associate myself with the condemnation of the unfortunate minority in this country who have sought to salt those wounds of the Jewish people by gravest bigotry and prejudice. That has no place in this country. People who want to treat others and other countries like that should not be in this nation, fundamentally. Certainly anyone who is acting this way and who is not an Australian citizen should, in my view, be deported immediately and charged with crimes for their incitement of violence and hateful conduct.</para>
<para>I also want to support, as others have done, the fundamental right of Israel—and any nation—to defend itself after such attacks. I want to support the contribution that Senator Scarr has just made. I would hope that the Greens reconsider their amendment to the motion, especially the deletion of the paragraph on the right of Israel to defend itself. If Israel does not have a right to defend itself, do we have a right to defend ourselves? The Greens and others in this place sometimes express the view that we're a colonial construct and in some way invaders of this land. Is it their position that any nation has the right to defend itself from these kinds of attacks? What happens if something like this happens in this country one day? Do we have the right to respond? I think we fundamentally do and therefore should support any other nation that seeks to defend itself from such barbarity.</para>
<para>I have also been deeply affected by the loss of civilian life in Gaza. This is a terrible consequence of these actions. The principal guilty party for these deaths of civilians, of Palestinian deaths, is Hamas. They deserve the world's condemnation for not just the direct actions they have caused but now the indirect suffering they are causing for the people of the Gaza Strip and the broader Palestinian community.</para>
<para>We should keep in mind that there are millions of people in the Gaza Strip—all members of our broad human race that should be protected and defended. The innocent lives there should be protected and defended, as this motion expresses. I've heard some say, 'Well, people in Gaza voted for Hamas,' but that election occurred 2006, and, in fact, while Hamas received 44 per cent of the vote, that leaves more than half the people of Gaza, and of other places in Israel that voted at those elections, who didn't support Hamas, and, of course, there are millions of children that have been born since those elections that are completely innocent and are now suffering because of the actions of this evil and barbaric organisation called Hamas. We should seek to protect those lives as much as possible—although, of course, given the way that Hamas has waged war against Israel, it is impossible, or almost impossible, to protect all innocent lives now, in the justifiable pursuit and destruction of the Hamas organisation.</para>
<para>I support Israel. I'm a friend of Israel, because it is, I believe, a civilised, democratic country. The burden of civilisation always is, of course, to seek to not descend to the evil of your opponents. Part of that burden of civilisation is to seek to protect innocent lives, even when you are seeking to destroy those that have done so much damage to you.</para>
<para>So I support the sentiments in this motion and the efforts in recent days to provide humanitarian aid to the people of the Gaza Strip, and also to seek the safe passage of civilians away—including, may I add, the Australians who are stuck in the Gaza Strip. So I hope and pray that those Australians remain safe and can find an exit from this terrible enclave right now.</para>
<para>I want to stress also my support for the part of this motion which seeks to have Australia contribute to efforts for the containment of this conflict. We seem to have been passing through months and months of more and more depravity and barbarity over the past couple of years, and I hope I am wrong but I have this dulling sensation that, in years to come, we may see these years as simply the preface to another world war. That's something I very much hope we can avoid and will seek to do everything we can to minimise the risk of.</para>
<para>There obviously has to be a military response to these barbaric attacks. There are now two carrier battle groups from the US Navy in the eastern Mediterranean. There are of course the states surrounding Israel that would like to, and probably want to, encourage a broader conflict. We must, I think, encourage our friends in Israel and our allies around the world to act now in cool-hearted prudence in response to these attacks.</para>
<para>I have noticed, in speaking to members of the Jewish community—and I completely understand it—the anger that has sprung in response to these attacks. But I do think we should keep in mind the old saying about how much the consequences of anger are worse than the causes of it. We shouldn't seek to let that anger dictate our response, because then we may simply fall into a trap that has been set by Hamas to overreact.</para>
<para>As Australians, we should reflect on our own experience in fighting terror over the past couple of decades. In the light of hindsight, I believe that we, with our allies, at times overreacted to the September 11 attacks and ultimately cost more lives than were necessary and caused more disruption around the world than was justified. And we still live with the consequences of that overreaction today.</para>
<para>So I want to finish by fully supporting the efforts of Israel to bring Hamas to justice and ultimately destroy this evil organisation, but I'd also like us to play our part, as peaceful actors in the world, to minimise the risk of a broader conflict and war such that we do not see this week's barbarity repeated on a much greater scale over a much greater region.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>22:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to make my contribution to this extremely important debate and add my voice to the condemnation of the horrific and barbaric acts of Hamas that we saw in Israel only a few days ago. So many of our colleagues across the chamber have quite graphically put on the record the details of the horrific events, and I can only support their entreaties that the efforts to deal with the barbarism that we have seen are supported, as well as the right of Israel, as so many of our colleagues have said, to defend itself in a situation, as the ambassador said to some of us this morning, that they didn't seek, didn't want and didn't expect but are determined to defend and to win. We must protect and uphold that right as a peaceful nation and as a nation who seeks peace.</para>
<para>I can only reflect on the comments of Senator Canavan a moment ago, where he said that we are seeing, unfortunately, a rise of these barbaric acts by nations led by a barbaric—I think it's the only way you can describe it—authoritarian type of rule that impacts on their own peaceful peoples often against the will of those people. It's imposed on those people as well. I think Senator Canavan so ably made the point a moment ago that the impact of the retaliation on the Palestinians—in fact, retaliation is probably the wrong word. The response to the defence of the Israeli people that's currently being undertaken is to be regretted by us all.</para>
<para>When it all comes down to it, I think the thing that most of us want is to be able to lead a peaceful lifestyle with our families and to be able to do the things that allow us all to live that good and peaceful lifestyle and prosper with our families. But the brutal acts of Hamas in attacking families in their communities and people enjoying a music festival that was being held in the name of peace on the Jewish Sabbath are devastating, outrageous and must be condemned.</para>
<para>All of us, I think, would like to see a peaceful resolution to all these matters in and around Israel and the Middle East. But that isn't possible when you have a terrorist organisation such as Hamas whose objective is the obliteration of the Israeli people and the Israeli state. If the Palestinian people want to live in peace with their neighbours in Israel, the one thing they could do is to cast Hamas out from their midst. While Hamas is there they can't live in peace; it won't be possible for the Palestinians or the Israelis to live in peace. The Jews living in Israel, the Arabs living in Israel in those communities, the Palestinians who live in those communities in Israel—none of them can live in peace while you have a terrorist organisation who has the objective of obliterating the Jewish people.</para>
<para>It's important that we defend not only Israel's right to exist but its right to defend itself, and that we do whatever we can to support the creation of peace in that part of the world, to support the provision of humanitarian aid, to support the repatriation of those who are trying to escape what's there and now occurring, and to support the creation of corridors for people to move. As a peace-loving nation, we would really like to see an end to these types of atrocious events and hostilities. But, as the motion says, it's important for us to express our support for the state and the people of Israel, their right to live in peace and, importantly, their right to defend themselves, and we should all do that with all our force—but while remembering the others who have been impacted and drawn into this horrific situation by the vile and brutal acts of Hamas.</para>
<para>I would urge the Palestinian people to purge themselves of this vile organisation. We don't want to see a repeat of the scenes we saw here in Australia at the Sydney Opera House; those have been, should be and are appropriately condemned. There's no place for that sort of language and behaviour in this country. We're a country who welcomes people from around the world but we don't welcome that kind of behaviour, that kind of hatred and that expression. We are a country that supports peaceful existence and is prepared to do what it can to promote that and support that, and we should continue to do that.</para>
<para>I add my condolences to all those in Israel and around the world whose families have been impacted by these terrible events. I add my condemnation of Hamas for these terrible, brutal, atrocious, unspeakable events they've perpetrated. And I add my voice to the many that have proposed hope that we can resolve this matter as quickly as we possibly can, and my support to those who put in efforts to return these communities to a peaceful existence so that they can rebuild and get on with their lives and existence in the way they should be able to. I add my voice of support to the motion.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>22:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FAWCETT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to make just a few brief remarks in support of the motion. I will be brief, having issued a written statement very early after 7 October, along with my colleague Senator O'Neill, as co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Israel. In doing this, I also want to associate myself with the remarks of Senator Wong, Senator Birmingham and, particularly, Senator Paterson, who made remarks tonight. I think they summarised the majority of issues that are particularly important for Australians and people of goodwill around the world to contemplate.</para>
<para>I do just want to add a few additional remarks. Firstly, to the Palestinian community here in Australia: I understand the distress and hurt and concern that are felt by people in that community, but I don't think that we can shy away from the condemnation of Hamas and their actions. I think it is telling when we look at intent and actions. Reports of wounded people in Israel being dragged from their cars and beaten and shot repeatedly versus wounded Hamas fighters being taken from the battlefield to Israeli hospitals to be treated alongside the Israeli wounded, to my mind, speak volumes about how those two different entities value life.</para>
<para>There has been a lot of narrative about a prison. A prison has walls on all sides, to punish people. Gaza does not have a wall on its southern border, because Israel withdrew unilaterally in 1982, and that border is controlled by Hamas and Egypt. There are barricades and walls on other parts of the border, between Gaza and Israel, as defensive measures, because Israel have sought to defend their people from suicide attacks, terrorist attacks, simple attacks by people with knives, because they value life.</para>
<para>On the narrative of occupation, as I said, Israel withdrew from Gaza in 1982, unilaterally. But the rhetoric of 75 years would imply that the Jewish people had no right to be in that location at all, whereas there have been Jews living continuously in the region for over 3,000 years. The Ottoman Empire was the governing body for that area for many years. After its defeat in World War I, there was a Jewish population there, and more came to join them and legitimately bought land, to become landholders in the area. One of the first really large waves of immigration was Jews from Arab states who were either expelled or, essentially, forced to leave through economic and other measures after the war of 1948, when Arab nations sought to destroy the new state of Israel.</para>
<para>It's a conflicted and complicated history—I understand that—but the narrative that has been put forward by some is simplistic and doesn't recognise the reality that there have been Jews living there for centuries, millennia, that the state of Israel exists and has been recognised by the world community. They have a right to defend their civilians. The fact that Hamas choose to deliberately target civilians and the fact that Israel, in seeking to target Hamas, has caused the death of civilians because of where Hamas have launched their attacks from and how they use civilians as a shield cannot be held as equal ills. The travesty, the trauma, for the Palestinian people I do not deny. It doesn't matter where destruction or death comes from; it is a tragedy. But the intent of Hamas and Israel cannot be compared.</para>
<para>So I join with many others in willing that there will be peace for both the Palestinians and the Israelis, in secure borders, with prosperous communities. I note that many Arabs and Israelis, or Arabs who are Israelis, live peaceably alongside other Jews, as has been the case in that region for many, many centuries. But the Palestinian people are betrayed by the leadership of people like Hamas, with their stated intent to destroy the state of Israel and Jews; by the sponsorship of regimes such as Iran; and by a leadership such as the Palestinian authority, who teach and inculcate in their children hatred and a love of violence as opposed to looking for the opportunities to build peace and relationship and a future for themselves and for their people.</para>
<para>Australia is a country with people from many faiths and backgrounds, and we have found a way to seek the common good. I would seek for all people in Australia to continue that, but part of seeking good is calling out evil, and the actions of Hamas are evil. So tonight I join in supporting this motion. I reject the amendment of the Greens, and I say again that I support Israel's right to exist and their right to defend their nation. I would ask that all Australians recognise that war and violence of any kind are not good, but, as the mayor of Hamburg said 40 years ago, after the Allied bombing of his city which had caused so many civilian deaths, 'If the Allies had not been prepared to meet Nazi violence with violence, Germany would not know democracy, peace and freedom today,' which was a powerful statement for a leader of a city that had seen so much loss of life during the war. I support the motion.</para>
<para>Senate adjourned at 22:22</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
</hansard>