2023-10-18 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Wednesday, 18 October 2023

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sue Lines ) took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 09:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Rearrangement 1 09:01 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia by leave—I move: That government business order of the day no. 1, relating to Hamas attacks on Israel and the ongoing conflict, be called on immediately. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 1 MOTIONS Israel 1 09:02 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question before the Senate is that the amendment moved by Senator Steele-John be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [09:06]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

 11 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 54 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Fawcett, D. J. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McAllister, J. R. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 09:11 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The next question before the Senate is that the motion moved by Senator Wong relating to Hamas attacks on Israel be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [09:11]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

 55 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Fawcett, D. J. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McAllister, J. R. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. White, L. Wong, P. 11 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

BILLS 3 BILLS Freeze on Rent and Rate Increases Bill 2023 3

Freeze on Rent and Rate Increases Bill 2023

Second Reading 3 09:15 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Australia is in the middle of a rental and housing crisis. People renting a home and people buying a home are spending record amounts of their income to put a roof over their head. Too many renters across the country are staring down the barrel of another rental increase that will push them into homelessness. In a country as wealthy as ours, rising rates of homelessness are a national disgrace. Meanwhile, skyrocketing house prices have put buying a home forever out of reach for countless everyday families. The housing crisis is the result of policy choices by successive governments, and both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party are responsible for these terrible choices: generous tax-breaks for property investors; and lending policies that have burdened families with record levels of debt and funnelled billions in profit to the big banks. We have also seen the retreat of governments at all levels from providing public housing, and absolutely no protection for renters. This has turned a basic human right into an instrument of financial speculation that is enriching the already wealthy. It is unfathomable that the government can find tens of billions of dollars every year in the budget for nuclear submarines and tax cuts for politicians and millionaires, while families are sleeping in their cars, essential workers are unable to afford a home near where they work, and people are being evicted because they can't pay the unlimited increases to their rents. The government is sitting on its hands when it has the capacity to intervene and stop the worst of this crisis. Make no mistake: the housing and rental crisis is a political choice. It is the result of the social contract being torn up in the interests of big capital. Powerful vested interests have dictated government policy on housing. This bill responds to the need for national leadership to address the rental and housing crisis by seeking to establish a national freeze on rent increases and on interest rate increases. Rents are increasing at the fastest rate on record. The 2022 increase in rents was a record. 2023 increases are forecast to eclipse this record. In the past 12 months rents in capital cities have grown six times as fast as wages. Renters are set to pay an extra $4.9 billion as a result of rent increases just this year. Less than one per cent of rentals nationwide are affordable for a person earning a full-time minimum wage, making it near impossible for essential workers to afford to rent in most parts of the country. And close to zero per cent of rentals are affordable for people on the aged pension, disability support pension, JobSeeker or youth allowance. Even with this bill providing for a two-year rent freeze and a cap on rent increases at two per cent every two years, wages aren't forecast to catch up to the impacts of recent rent growth until 2029. The Prime Minister has repeatedly claimed that regulating rental tenancies can only be achieved by the states and territories, or that implementing a freeze on rent increases would require nationalising the private rental market. This is an abrogation of responsibility. Despite what the Prime Minister has repeatedly claimed, rent freezes are not an extraordinary or novel idea, nor are they 'pixie dust'. Tasmanian, Victorian, South Australian and Western Australian governments froze rents for six months when the COVID pandemic hit, and private rental properties were not nationalised at that time. Historically, rent freezes have been used in times of rampant inflation. In 1941, the government froze rents to deal with inflation caused by wartime shortages. Throughout the world rent controls are used to protect tenants from punitive and excessive increases in rental pressure and in rent pressure zones. From New York and California to Scotland and Ireland, action has been taken to limit rent increases. London Mayor Sadiq Khan called for powers to freeze rents for two years. The New Zealand Human Rights Commission has called for a temporary rent freeze throughout the country to tackle the cost-of-living and rent crisis. Most recently, Spain capped their rent increases in areas where rent is increasing significantly. Just as the federal government coordinates national policy in areas such as health and education, by offering grants to the states and territories who sign up to a national agenda, the federal government can coordinate a national freeze on rent increases and take action on out-of-control rent rises. In fact, when the COVID pandemic hit, the Morrison government coordinated an eviction moratorium via the National Cabinet, proving that it is possible for the federal government to take action on renters' rights. More recently, the Prime Minister effectively refuted his previous claims, when he announced that National Cabinet had tasked the Housing and Homelessness Ministerial Council with examining action on renter rights, including the frequency and amount of rent increases, and reporting back later this year. In the meantime, families will face eviction and be forced into homelessness because they are being slapped with another unprecedented rental increase that they cannot afford. A national freeze on rent increases is not only necessary; it is possible, and it is urgent. When Labor had the opportunity to freeze and cap rental increases at National Cabinet, they chose not to, so every person made homeless now because of unlimited rent increases is Labor's fault. This bill establishes the framework for the federal government to work with states and territories to implement a rent freeze by providing additional housing funding to states and territories who adopt rent control measures within their own tenancy legislation. Following the passage of this bill, the minister would be required to take all reasonable steps to reach an agreement with the states and territories to implement a freeze on rent increases. In return, participating state and territories would have their housing funding from the federal government doubled. Currently, the states and territories receive a combined $1.6 billion per annum in federal funding via the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement. The additional funding provided for by the passage of this bill could be used to immediately boost the supply of public and genuinely affordable housing by buying up existing properties, such as those exiting the National Rental Affordability Scheme, or investing in desperately needed new public housing construction. In return for the doubling of housing funding, the bill also requires states and territories to implement model tenancy standards. Model tenancy standards would include a two-year freeze on rent increases and ongoing caps on increases of two per cent every two years. The rental control measures provided by this bill would apply to the individual property rather than the individual lease, ensuring the rents could not be exorbitantly increased between tenancies. Furthermore, model tenancy standards would include a ban on no-cause evictions, including at the end of fixed term tenancies. This would avoid the perverse outcome that is occurring in Queensland, where, despite no-cause evictions supposedly being prohibited, tenants are receiving notices to vacate at the end of a fixed term tenancy. Interest rates are also increasing at record speeds. We also saw the RBA increase interest rates at eleven of twelve meetings. The RBA is doing this in response to high inflation that is between half and three-quarters as a result of supply-side pressures, including corporate profiteering, that monetary policy can do little to offset. The RBA is also doing this after providing forward guidance during 2020 and 2021 that interest rates were unlikely to increase above 0.1 per cent until 2024. We continue to see increasing rents as a key driver of inflation, pushing up interest rates even more. Interest rate hikes are increasing housing costs for mortgage holders, with monthly repayments for the average mortgage holder having increased by around $1,000 in the last year. Interest rate hikes are also increasing housing costs for renters, with low vacancy rates allowing landlords to pass on interest rate increases with little ability for prospective tenants to refuse these increases. The government has repeatedly claimed that interest rate decisions are out of its hands because the RBA is independent. But the government has the power to intervene and has always had the power to intervene. Section 11 of the Reserve Bank Act 1959 sets out the procedure by which the Treasurer may overrule the RBA and set monetary policy in the event of a difference of opinion between the government and the RBA. These powers were introduced by Ben Chifley upon the establishment of a central bank in Australia through the Commonwealth Bank Act 1945. These powers were then retained by the Menzies government when the Reserve Bank of Australia was established and separated from the Commonwealth Bank in 1959. A democratically elected government should have this power to overturn the decisions of elected bankers. This framework established by Section 11 was taken from the 1937 report of the Royal Commission into Monetary and Banking Systems, which stated that the government should ultimately be responsible for monetary and banking policy. So what a farce it has been that the governments have washed their hands of this responsibility. This bill would make it clear that the government is ultimately responsible for monetary policy and that section 11 can be used to freeze interest rates. Following the passage of this bill, the Treasurer should invoke section 11 to freeze the cash rate target and the interest rate on exchange settlement balances at no more than 3.60 per cent for twelve months, and my colleague Senator McKim will have much more to say on this. This bill is proposing real action for renters and mortgage holders in a time of an unprecedented housing crisis. It is possible. It is not a fanciful idea to ask for more. Over the last three decades of neoliberal economic policy, the role of government in housing has consistently been replaced by the private market, the real estate industry and other large-scale financial actors. Successive Liberal and Labor governments have been more interested in ensuring the big banks, wealthy investors and property developers continue to rake in record profits at the expense of everyday people. This bill would reverse that trend by putting the interests of renters and mortgage holders ahead of the big banks, developers and property moguls. Everyone needs a home. That much should be clear to everyone. Housing should be treated as a home and as a social good, not a speculative financial asset. People should not have to feel 'extremely lucky' to have a roof over their head. 09:27 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania There is no doubt that a lot of Australians are doing it tough right now when it comes to housing and there is no doubt that Australians have the previous government to thank for this predicament. The previous government, for nearly a decade, sat on their hands and did nothing despite desperate calls for action by community service organisations, homeless Australians and Australians under rental stress, so it has once again fallen to Labor the government to fix yet another crisis left by the previous government. I am pleased to say that, since forming government, that is exactly what we have been doing. Whether you are buying or renting, Labor is getting on with the job with making housing more affordable for all Australians through our ambitious housing reform agenda, squarely focused on boosting and streamlining the supply of housing. You don't need to be an economist to understand that when demand outstrips supply, prices go up and, conversely, when supply increases prices, go down. The Albanese government has therefore prioritised a range of policy initiatives aimed at increasing the supply of all houses, including public, social and affordable housing, many more homes to buy and more homes to rent. Last month the Albanese government's signature in Housing Australia Future Fund was legislated by parliament, delivering on a key election promise from Labor. This $10 billion fund is the single-biggest investment in social and affordable housing in more than a decade, and it is anticipated that in the first five years alone we will be able to build 30,000 social and affordable homes. To put this in context, this is more social housing than was provided over the past decade from the combined contribution of the Commonwealth, state and territory governments. In addition to the Housing Australia Future Fund I would like to remind my Senate colleagues of what the Albanese government has achieved on housing in the short time since forming government last year. We have provided an extra $1 billion to the expanded National Housing Infrastructure Facility so we can get more homes on the ground more quickly. We've dispersed a total of $2 billion to the states and territories under the Social Housing Accelerator, which will create thousands of new homes for Australians on social housing waiting lists. We've delivered a new national housing accord, bringing together all levels of government, investors and the building and construction sector in a shared ambition to build one million new well-located homes over five years, starting in 2024. The Grattan Institute has estimated this scheme could save renters up to $32 billion over the next 10 years. Supporting the National Housing Accord is a $3 billion new homes bonus, a scheme designed to incentivise states and territories to build 1.2 million well-located homes where people need them, as well as the $500 million housing support program for initiatives to help kickstart housing supply. We've also brought together states and territories with an agreement on the National Planning Reform Blueprint to streamline planning, zoning, land release and other measures to accelerate housing supply and improve affordability. Also provided in the housing legislation recently passed by the parliament is the establishment of the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council, an independent statutory advisory body. The council will not only provide independent advice to the government on ways to increase housing supply and affordability; it will also ensure that our investments in housing are underpinned by expert advice. The culmination of our housing policy has been a phenomenal effort, and I have to take this time to congratulate my friend the Minister for Housing and the Minister for Homelessness, Julie Collins, the member for Franklin, for her incredible hard work and conviction in tackling issues of housing head-on. She has certainly put a lot of effort into sorting this issue out. In stark contrast to the responsible approach to housing and supply by the Albanese government, the Greens have proposed a bill to place a freeze on rent and interest rate increases. While this idea sounds like a quick and easy solution to the distress many tenants are facing, this proposal is nothing more than another cheap political stunt by the Greens. While we understand that many Australians are finding it tough to find an affordable place to rent and that interest rate rises are often a bitter pill to swallow for those with a mortgage, this government will not support policies which give false hope to Australians who are already feeling the considerable pinch of housing stress. After spending months in this place delaying the delivery of actual concrete action on housing, the Greens are once again putting forward a policy designed to do nothing more than bolster their brand in the run-up to the next election. This bill is not about helping or serving the people of Australia; it is about serving their own self-interested gain of political pointscoring. This fundamentally flawed policy on housing is just another clear example of how they work. When it comes to the issue of interest rate control, this is nothing but pure electioneering fluff from the Greens. The proposed bill seeks to fundamentally undermine the independence of the Reserve Bank of Australia despite an RBA review in March this year recommending the complete opposite. In fact, the review recommended that the government bolster the RBA's independence by removing the power of government to override monetary policy decisions of the Reserve Bank. The government supports the independence of the RBA and has accepted in principle all recommendations from the March review. As the Greens also know—or at least they ought to—the policy of rent control is just another red herring. After all, it was the Greens who called for a Senate inquiry into the worsening rental crisis in Australia, only to hear expert witness after expert witness attest to the negative impacts a rent freeze would have on the rental market. If that wasn't enough to convince them of their political folly, there is an absolute trove of academic literature and evidence from around the world highlighting the long-term damage this type of policy represents. Indeed, according to the Grattan Institute, such measures would end up doing more harm than good, resulting in more Australians, not fewer, becoming homeless. They say: The cap would blunt the incentive to build more housing, leaving us with fewer, poorer-quality dwellings. …   …   …    Only when housing is plentiful will it also be affordable. That's the plan renters should get behind. This is not just the opinion of the Grattan Institute. The Centre for Equitable Housing, a think tank that advocates for all Australians to have secure, affordable housing, recently published a report on the regulation of rentals in Australia, which states: We find that first generation rent control, or a "rent freeze", would be a poor response to the real challenges facing Australia's housing system, almost certainly making the problem worse for those in real housing stress. Freezing rents has been shown to reduce supply at the lower end of the market, as investors shift to higher-yield property development and withdraw more affordable properties from the market altogether. The report goes on to say: In the medium- to long-term, increasing social housing stock is critical to resolving rental unaffordability and insecurity. There is overwhelming evidence from all over the world that rent control strategies simply do not work and ultimately do nothing but make the crisis worse. Some examples—for the Greens' benefit—of failed rent control policies from around the world include New York. Since the 1940s, New York has restricted annual rent increases, resulting in rents significantly lower than market value. Landlords are left with little incentive to maintain or improve their properties, which has led to an ageing and deteriorating housing stock and the ultimate ghettoisation of many neighbourhoods. The consequence of this has been the emergence of a two-tiered system. While some tenants with long-term and often intergenerational leases pay artificially low rents, others, particularly newcomers, are forced to pay steep market rents. This is a failed experiment which has only led to further inequality and social division. Well-meaning rigid rent control in Stockholm has unintentionally led to a chronic housing shortage, with waiting lists for controlled rent apartments stretching into decades. This has ultimately led to the emergence of a black market for rental contracts, resulting in further inequity and social division. Rent regulation was introduced in Paris in 2015. With landlords unable to increase rents above a certain index, many chose to sell their properties rather than lease them. This resulted in increased rental demand and, unsurprisingly, an ultimate increase in rents. The failed experiment was short-lived, with the policy being repealed, after just two years, in 2017. Berlin also experimented with rent caps by introducing a planned five-year rent freeze in 2020, which ended in disaster. Once again, the policy had the effect of disincentivising investment in the housing sector, ultimately worsening the city's housing problem. In a case which lasted nearly a year, the policy was eventually overturned in Germany's Federal Constitutional Court in 2021. Berlin landlords were subsequently entitled to demand rental back payments on previously frozen rents, resulting in countless evictions of tenants facing significant arrears. This was yet another failed experiment highlighting the legal complexities and pitfalls that rent controls present, once again leaving renters to pick up the pieces. So the evidence is clear: rent control policies simply do not work. Not only do such policies fail to meet their objectives; invariably, they have the unintended consequence of leaving renters even worse off than before. There is no need for Australia to become yet another failed experiment in the world of rent control that this bill represents. Rather than distorting the housing market with below-market rental rates or removing the independence of the RBA, as the Greens have suggested, the Albanese government is taking the far more responsible and pragmatic approach of addressing the root cause of the problem: supply. The solution is building more homes, and, thanks to our comprehensive housing agenda, that is exactly what the Albanese Labor government is doing. 09:39 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales I rise today to speak on the Freeze on Rent and Rate Increases Bill 2023, which is potentially one of the worst bills I have seen come before the Senate in my very short time here. It is policy on the run that will likely compound the problem that it is looking to solve. Another reason that this is a bad bill is that the Greens currently have an inquiry running in the Community Affairs References Committee, on which I sit and which a Green chairs, where public money and Senate time has been expended and there have been a substantive and intense series of submissions and public hearings. This process is not yet complete. As recently as a fortnight ago we travelled to Melbourne to hear more evidence, spending public money. The tabling of that report is due within the next few weeks, yet for some reason the Greens have decided that they are not going to wait for the outcome of that inquiry and are going to run with this bill instead. They are not going to wait for the outcome of that inquiry. In my view this is disrespectful of the Senate process, but more about that later. I was reading this bill. I got through the first four items and I thought to myself: 'This isn't too bad. There's not much to see here. It's just tweaking some definitions and some titles. There's nothing really out of the ordinary.' Then I turned to item 5. It is here where we see the true colours of the Greens coming through, akin to the scary red flag of Stalin. Again, I'll have a little bit more on that later. Senator McKim JKM I can hardly wait. Senator KOVACIC 306168 Stay tuned. The Greens have put homeownership in the too-hard basket. The Greens would probably rather see the big super funds or big investment firms, like BlackRock, Vanguard and others, own your home for you but pretend to protect your rights as a tenant and be considerate of you with these faux protections, pushing young Australians away from homeownership into state and institution owned housing. But I digress. I turn to item 5. Let's have a look at what this requires the state governments to do in order to receive housing funds from the Commonwealth. Bear with me as I read directly from the bill. It states: (i) rental prices of existing rental properties must not exceed the price the property was rented at on 1 January 2023 for a period of 2 years beginning on the agreement commencement date … In translation that means a rent freeze for two years. Next it states: (ii) if the tenant of a rented property changes after the agreement commencement date, the rental price must not exceed the price the property was rented at on 1 January 2023 for the duration of the period … That means that the rent freeze remains in place even if there is a change of tenant, so, if your tenant goes, you still have a rent freeze on the property that you own. Next it states: (iii) if a property is substantially renovated after the agreement commencement date and rented, the price the renovated property is rented at must not exceed the median rent price for a property of the same type in the same postcode as the renovated property for the duration of the period … That means, for example, if a mum-and-dad investor goes to the bank and borrows $150,000 for some basic renovations for their investment property, they cannot determine how much they can rent it for when they are done. A very special formula cobbled together by comrade senators McKim and Faruqi will make that decision for them. They will make that decision for Australian mum-and-dad investors. There is more. Next it states: (iv) if a property was not rented on the agreement commencement date and is rented after the agreement commencement date, the price the property is rented at must not exceed the median rent price for a property of the same type in the same postcode as the property for the duration of the period … I had to read that a few times to understand it, and I like to think that I have at least basic knowledge of housing and the property market. This means that, if you currently live in a home that you own and you decide to move somewhere else—like, move in with your partner or your financial circumstances dictate you should go to a smaller property and rent yourself—you can't decide how much you can rent out your house for, even though you have never rented it out before. But don't worry. The Greens have another special formula for that too, so we shouldn't be worried. The bill states: (v) after the period mentioned in subparagraph (i)— which I read out earlier— increases to rental prices are limited to a maximum of 2% every 2 years … So, regardless of your costs and regardless of the inflationary environment, it's a maximum of two per cent every two years. Next it states: (b) a ban on no-grounds evictions, including at the end of a fixed-term tenancy agreement … This means that when the tenancy agreement ends—this is the agreement between you, a mum-and-dad investor, and your tenant—you can't ask the tenant to leave, even though your agreement is finished. Senator McKim JKM It's their home. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Order! Senator McKim JKM I know it's hard for you to understand, but it's their home. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Order! Senator McKim JKM It's where people live. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Senator McKim, I just called 'order' twice. Senator KOVACIC 306168 Next is: … a ban on sale of premises evictions; This means if next month you suffer the 13th interest rate rise since the Albanese Labor government came into power and you can't afford the repayments on the property and need to sell it, you can't ask the tenant to leave so you can do that. You have to sell the property with the tenant in place and hope that you can manage that with them whilst you also manage the stress of not being able to afford your loan repayments. Finally, there's: … any other matters set out in the designated housing agreement. We don't have enough time to go through that. As noted by Senator Bilyk, that there is clear evidence of rent caps and freezes making housing markets much worse, further perpetuating the problem. Ironically, Senator Faruqi raised New York, the most expensive housing market in the world, as a shining example of rent caps and rent freezes. I am confused. At the public hearing in Melbourne, Mr Coates from the Grattan Institute had this to say: With rent controls in that way, there are a few things that happen. One is that you risk reducing the quality and quantity of housing that's made available in the long term. Secondly, you generate a misallocation of the housing stock that means you need much more housing in order to provide the same level of housing to each member of the community. So, in a world where you have strict rent controls, where people are not required to bear the full cost in the long term of what that housing is actually worth, they will hoard it; they will live in a home that's got two extra spare bedrooms or three extra spare bedrooms. This tends to have generational effects, where those that are around when the rent control is first established do very well and those that come in future generations—say, younger families looking for a property— I am somewhat stunned, as I alluded to in the beginning of my contribution, that the Greens are moving this bill whilst we are in the middle of a Senate inquiry into the very same topic—an inquiry one of their senators is leading and chairing—before the committee has reported back to the Senate with its findings. Is there something that they are worried about? Perhaps the inquiry they have called won't yield the results they want. This bill from the Greens demonstrates a complete and utter detachment from reality and a lack of understanding of the commercial practicalities of the housing system and the private rental system and the damage the bill would cause. There is little doubt that the implementation of the measures contained within this bill would drive Australian mum-and-dad investors out of the rental market and open the door to institutional investors, further depleting homeownership by Australians. Let's think about that. The Greens want to drive the opportunity of homeownership away from individuals and redirect that opportunity to institutional investors, and they don't care if these institutional investors are domestic or foreign owned. We definitely don't need foreign institutional landlords in the place of mum-and-dad Australian investors. The Greens are happy as long as we entrench Australians into being tenants, rather providing opportunities for them to become homeowners. I'd hoped that we'd left some of these Stalinist policies like this one back in the 1950s, but, no, the Greens obsession with ultraprogressive regressionism doesn't stop with item 5. Item 6, as outlined in the bill's explanatory memorandum, is a measure called for in the 1937 Royal Commission into Monetary and Banking Systems. 1937—I actually doublechecked in case there was a typo! The Greens are invoking a 1937 royal commission in their explanatory memorandum in 2023, some 83 years later. We have come so far with so many changes to the banking and monetary system in Australia since then, such as the internet, online banking and globalisation, but clearly we haven't come far enough that the 1937 royal commission is now a timeless document. I thank the Greens for bringing it to my attention and to the attention of the Senate once again! I'm sure that I speak for all senators here today when I say that the 1937 Royal Commission into Monetary and Banking Systems should be at the forefront of our deliberations when it comes to managing banking policy! Forgive my descent into sarcasm, but I'm really annoyed by this bill. Why? Because, again, a committee that I sit on as a senator in this chamber has spent public money and has spent Senate time to set up an inquiry and public hearings across this country during a cost-of-living crisis at the behest of the Greens and now the Greens don't wish to wait a few weeks for the outcome of that process. But I'm sure that the Greens know, like their colleague, Senator Rice, whom I sit on the Community Affairs References Committee with—the only committee that the Greens chair—that I am very passionate about housing. I do commend the Greens for worrying about renters' rights and the imbalance that sometimes occur between those that own and those that rent. And it made me think about how many people in this chamber are in tune and understand the importance and benefits of homeownership, particularly into retirement. I spent some two decades helping people plan and achieve their goals of owning their own homes, setting up financial security for themselves and their families, and I know that the senators sponsoring this bill also know these benefits. But, on doing a little bit of research, I quickly discovered that both Senator McKim and Senator Faruqi each own four properties. Yes, you heard me correctly. Four properties each! This includes residential property, a holiday home—which I'm sure is very lovely—and some investment properties. I know what you are thinking, Acting Deputy President: why would such fierce advocates for renters own so many properties directly contributing to the housing crisis? Well, that's not for me to answer but leads directly to the main issue that nobody in the Greens is talking about, and that is supply. This is not just a rental crisis or a housing crisis but a homeownership crisis, and this crisis has many moving parts to it, not the least of which is the current cost-of-living crisis, which has seen the cost of new supply soar as inflation has gone unmanaged. Another factor to this issue of supply is the prolific nimbyism of necessary and sustainable development in metropolitan areas, with councils, particularly in New South Wales, being the most prolific. Which councils are they? Green councils. And it's not just a problem in New South Wales; it is also a problem in the federal seat of Griffith, home to some of the Brisbane's wealthiest residents. In April of this year, the AFR reported that the Greens housing spokesperson, the member for Griffith, opposed the development of 1,300 new homes in his electorate. We need to build more homes. We have a supply crisis, and they need to be in everyone's backyard. This is a collective responsibility. 09:53 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania It has rarely been my misfortune to have to sit in this chamber and listen to a bigger load of rubbish than we have just heard come out of the mouths of Senator Kovacic and Senator Bilyk. What a word salad we have just been subjected to. And, when it's all said and done, through that nearly half an hour of absolute rubbish—of misinformation, of ad hominem attacks, of complete failure to empathise with the crisis in rents and the massive financial pressures facing mortgage holders at the moment—what do I take from it? I take this: we don't want to do anything to help renters and we don't want to do anything to help mortgage holders. That's what I take from that. I remind people that the major parties in this place—the neoliberal political parties in this place that Senator Kovacic and Senator Bilyk belong to—both support $39 billion every year going from the consolidated fund into the pockets of property investors in this country. Think about that, colleagues: $39 billion a year in negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount. That is money that comes directly from the budget that could be used to actually build more public homes and to encourage the states to engage in rent relief for people. That $39 billion goes straight into the pockets of mostly wealthy property investors, thanks to the collusion between the Labor Party and the Liberal-National coalition in this place. I'm not going to go to all the misdirection and disinformation that we heard from Senator Kovacic and Senator Bilyk, but one thing I do want to address is the very smart insult that Senator Kovacic threw—she thought it was smart, at least—describing Senator Faruqi and me as 'comrades'. You know what? We are comrades. Senator Faruqi and I are absolutely comrades, as is everyone in the Australian Greens party room, and I'm proud to stand with Senator Faruqi. I'm proud to stand with all of my friends and comrades in the Australian Greens party room, to stand up for renters and to stand up for mortgage holders because—you know what?—someone has got to do it in this place, because it certainly isn't going to be the Labor Party or the Liberal-National coalition in Australia. People need to understand exactly what pressures people are facing out there in the community. We hear the words 'cost of living' a lot, but one of the main drivers of cost of living is what is undoubtedly a housing crisis in this country. We are hearing story after story. In fact, the committee inquiry that Senator Kovacic mentioned numerous times in her speech has heard story after story from renters who are facing double-digit percentage increases in their rents on an annual basis—completely unaffordable increases in their rents—because greedy landlords are seeing an opportunity to profiteer from a shortage of rental properties and a shortage, critically, of supply of public housing from government. We will also hear stories—and I've got no doubt we're going to hear stories in a minute from Senator Scarr, who's going to wave some weighty tome around; I have no doubt he's got there with him—about how if you put in place rent controls you will somehow impact on the quality and scale of housing supply. I've got two very simple responses to those arguments from Senator Kovacic and the ones we're about to hear from Senator Scarr. Governments should build more homes for people. Governments should build enough homes so everyone in this country has a place to live and a place to call home. That is the responsibility of government, and government should step up and fulfil that responsibility and build enough homes. That takes care of the supply issue. In terms of quality, the government should legislate minimum standards for rentals and force minimum standards on landlords who are refusing to engage in repairs, to deliver a warm home for people—or a cool home for people who live in the tropics— to deliver a safe home for people or to get the mould off the walls in rental properties. Force landlords to do it, by legislating minimum standards. This is not rocket science, colleagues. The market is failing, and government needs to step in and regulate. It's as simple as that. We heard the rubbish from Senator Bilyk about the Greens somehow holding up the HAFF. We delivered $3 billion extra into affordable housing in Australia—$3 billion extra that Labor claimed they couldn't afford but suddenly found when the Greens forced to them to by using our balance of power in this place. We also, through using our balance of power in this place, forced to the government to change the proposed $500 million cap on annual disbursements from the HAFF to be used to build homes for people in Australia into a minimum spend of $500 million. Let's be clear about that. When the government introduced that legislation, that $500 million annual disbursement was a cap. It is now a floor. That means, instead of the government not being able to spend any more than $500 million, they now have to spend at least $500 million. And all the while we were subjected to Senator Ayres and numerous senators on the Labor side, numerous senators on the Liberal side—and even Senator Lambie parroting Labor Party speaking points in the Tasmanian media—telling us to get on with it. Well, you know what? We held our ground and we delivered three billion extra dollars that Labor said they couldn't afford. Somehow, when push came to shove, thanks to the Greens, they found they could afford to put three billion extra dollars into affordable homes in Australia and turn the $500 million into a floor not a cap, as it previously was. One thing I will say about Senator Kovacic is that she has clearly read the bill and the explanatory memorandum. I give her credit for that and I thank her for, in her speech, referencing the reference that we included in the explanatory memorandum to this bill in regard to a royal commission into banking a long, long time ago—the best part of a century ago now—and some great Labor figures, including Ben Chifley. I reckon Senator Ayres may have heard of Ben Chifley. I reckon that's a reasonable proposition. Senator Scarr 282997 I have too! Senator McKIM JKM And Senator Scarr says that he has too. What happened back in the day was that, post that royal commission, when the Reserve Bank of Australia was formed, there was a very deliberate decision made to give a democratically elected government, through the Treasurer, the power to override the RBA. That is still enshrined in legislation today. When people say the RBA is independent, they're only telling half the story, and it suits the Labor and Liberal parties to talk about the independence of the RBA because it allows them to wring their hands and say: 'Oh, this is terrible. The RBA is putting interest rates up. It's terrible, but there's nothing we can do about it because the RBA is independent.' The RBA is not independent while section 11 of the Banking Act exists, because that section provides the power for the Treasurer to override the RBA. Let's be very clear about this. Mortgage holders are facing pain. Former Governor of the Reserve Bank Dr Lowe said in 2021 that interest rates would be on hold for many years into the future. Mortgage holders who believed that and, off the back of that comfort, made a decision to get into the property market are facing massive pressures now after the RBA engaged in an historic, record-breaking series of interest rate rises in this country, where they raised interest rates at 11 consecutive board meetings. Many of those people are actually inside out on their mortgages now—their mortgages are bigger than the value of their properties. That situation is actually on Treasurer Jim Chalmers and the Australian Labor Party, because the power is there in legislation for Mr Chalmers to override the RBA, and he is refusing to do it. What we get is the ashen-faced Treasurer coming out and saying how terrible it is and that he understands the pain faced by mortgage holders but there's nothing he can do about it. Well, there actually is something he could do about it, and that is use the powers that were very wisely inserted into statute to override the RBA. Colleagues, it is fundamental in a democracy that, at the end of the day, the power, responsibility and accountability should rest with those who are directly accountable to the people, and that is us in this place. That is the Treasurer, Mr Chalmers. It is not the unelected technocrats who sit on the board of the RBA. The RBA as it is currently constituted is a peak body of the neoliberal approach to economics, which is currently cooking the planet and destroying nature to the extent that the ecological processes that actually sustain human life on this planet are collapsing around us as we speak. The neoliberal approach to economics has absolutely turbocharged poverty. It has turbocharged climate collapse. It has turbocharged ecological collapse. And people are paying the price. They are living through floods and they are living through bushfires. So many people in this country—one of the wealthiest countries in the world—are being ground into abject poverty thanks to neoliberalism and economic orthodoxy, supported and delivered by the political duopoly in this chamber, the ALP and the Liberal and National parties. Well, do you know what? As I said earlier, someone has to stand up for renters in this place. Someone has to stand up for mortgage holders in this place. And it ain't going to be anyone if it's not the Greens. We proudly bring this legislation before the Senate, because the housing market has failed. I remind people that the Minister for Housing, Julie Collins, belled the cat on 7.30 four or five months ago when she said that Labor regards housing as an asset class. That tells you everything you need to know about the failure of the two major parties to deliver for renters and mortgage holders. Both these parties fail to understand one fundamental truth, and that is that houses are places where people make their homes. Having a home is a fundamental human right, and there is no reason whatsoever that every Australian should not have a safe, comfortable, dignified home to live in. The only reason they don't is the choices made by the Labor and Liberal parties in this place, who are mainlining neoliberalism and, in doing so, turbocharging the profits of property speculators and prioritising those profits above the right of every Australian to have a safe and affordable home. It is a disgusting disgrace that not every Australian has a safe and affordable home. I am so proud to be here with my comrades in the Australian Greens standing up for renters and mortgage holders and saying very clearly and firmly that having a home is a human right and that we fundamentally believe in and have the policies to deliver an Australia where everyone in this country has a safe, comfortable and affordable home. 10:09 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Sitting here today, I've just come up with a new theory in relation to economics, and I reckon it may well win me the Nobel Prize for economics! It is this: whatever the Greens propose in terms of economics policy, do the opposite. That's the Scarr rule of economics! I reckon that could well give me the Nobel Prize. It may well put me on a flight to Stockholm to collect my Nobel Prize for economics, following in the footsteps of one of the great neoliberal inspirations I have, Milton Friedman. It could well provide the opportunity to me to get the Nobel Prize for economics! When I go to Stockholm to collect my Nobel Prize for economics for coming up with my new economics rule, my new paradigm, which is: 'Whatever the Greens propose in terms of economics, do the opposite and you will get a better outcome,' I can talk to people in Stockholm about how rent control has gone in Stockholm. And what will I find? Nine-year waiting lists to get access to rent-controlled apartments in Stockholm. So what have they found in Scandinavia? They've found, just as they have all over the world, that the evidence does not support rent controls. This is the most classic of all classic examples of best intentions leading to negative outcomes—of best intentions paving that famous road to hell, leading to negative outcomes for the people who are intended to be assisted by the policy. I don't question the motivation of Senator McKim and his colleagues with respect to this policy and this legislation. I tip my hat to them. They care about this issue and want to do something positive about it. But what they're proposing will achieve exactly the opposite of what they're suggesting. Now, Senator McKim knows me reasonably well, because he knew I would quote from my textbook on basic economics in relation to rent control. Let me remind the chamber what our literature on basic economics tells us about rent control—first, in relation to Australia, since Senator Faruqi has mentioned rent control in Melbourne, Australia. Well, these are the facts. I'll quote from page 43 of my edition of Thomas Sowell's book Basic Economics. He's another great neoliberal. He writes: 'Nine years after the end of World War II, not a single new apartment building had been built in Melbourne, Australia.' So that's nine years under rent control, under what the Greens are proposing in their horrendous economic policy. In economics, we should always do the opposite to what the Greens propose. This is what Basic Economics tells us: Nine years after the end of World War II, not a single new apartment building had been built in Melbourne, Australia, because of rent control laws there which made such buildings unprofitable. How's that assisting people in need, wanting accommodation? In nine years, not a single apartment building was built in Melbourne because of rent-control laws. Let's turn to page 44. What happened in the USA? Sowell writes: After rent control was instituted in Santa Monica, California in 1979, building permits declined to less than one-tenth of what they were just five years earlier. One-tenth! Again, how is that helping the people that the Australian Greens want to help? Let's have a look at what happened in England and Wales. On page 45, he writes: Under rent control in England and Wales, for example, privately-built rental housing fell from being 61 percent of all housing in 1947 to being just 14 per cent by 1977. A study of rent control in various countries concluded: "New investment in private unsubsidized rented housing is essentially nonexistent in all the European countries surveyed, except for luxury housing." So that's the impact of rent control—that construction capital would go towards luxury housing, as opposed to affordable housing, under the Greens policy. And then what happens when you lift rent control? This is what happens. I quote from page 47: 'In Massachusetts, a statewide ban on local rent-control laws in 1994 led to the construction of new apartment buildings in some formerly rent-controlled Massachusetts cities for the first time in 25 years.' So this is the flip side. This is the corollary. When you cease rent control, you actually increase supply and thereby assist those seeking affordable accommodation. The evidence is there. It is just baffling that the Australian Greens continue to put forward these ridiculous economic policies. I will quote from the submission made by the Productivity Commission to the Senate inquiry into the rental crisis in Australia. What did they find? Section 3 is entitled 'More homes, cheaper rent'. Of course, supply and demand—we need to increase the supply of the housing stock in this country, not introduce economic policies which would dampen or depress the supply of housing. The submission says, 'Addressing barriers to the supply of properties will reduce rents.' It's basic economics. Page 10 of the Productivity Commission's submission says: Increasing the supply of housing will lead to an increase in the supply of rental properties. While most newly-constructed properties are bought by owner-occupiers, about a third of mortgages for the purchase of new dwellings in June 2022 were for investors, most of whom will likely lease the properties in the rental market. And, in 2019-20, about 45% of new homes were bought by first home buyers, probably reducing demand for rental properties. Even when newly built housing does not immediately come on the rental market, it can still moderate rents. So, even when the market is given the signal that new supply is coming onto the market, rents fall or at least the increase is moderated, which is exactly what the Greens are trying to achieve—but it will not happen through their policy. The Productivity Commission submission concludes: Rent control is not an effective way to improve affordability for renters Governments should avoid policies that artificially depress rents and curtail the supply of new properties. Direct regulation of rental prices (or 'rent control) involves government regulation of rental prices, either fixing rents for the duration of a tenancy or imposing a rent limit across all tenancies. Australian jurisdictions have not imposed rent controls widely.    …   …   … Rent control benefits incumbent renters in the short term— So those who have already got a premises, tenants, are benefited in the short term, but this is the important point— but harms all renters in the long term. So what do the Greens know that all of the experts don't know? All of the evidence from Egypt to the UK to North America to here in Australia at the time of World War II was referred to by Senator Faruqi, who obviously hasn't gone to the trouble of working out the consequences of that policy when it was introduced in Australia. What do the Greens know that all of us don't know? I come back to Scarr's new theory of economics, which hopefully will lead to me flying to Stockholm to collect my Nobel prize for economics, and that is: 'Whatever the Greens propose in terms of economic policy, do the opposite, and you are guaranteed to get a better outcome.' When I go to collect my prize in Stockholm, I will talk to all those young Scandinavians, Swedes, who are in nine-year queues in Stockholm to try to get apartments, because rent control has not worked in Sweden, just as it has not worked in the United Kingdom, in Egypt, in North America and in Australia, and it will never work. Sadly, I'm afraid the Greens will never accept the reality, because their economics policy is an evidence-free zone. 10:19 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Australia is in a housing crisis. Australia is in a rental crisis. Millions and millions of Australians are suffering incredibly because of this. I've just been to a briefing by food relief charities, who tell me there is a massive increase in the number of people accessing their food relief who have never had to access food relief before. Why? Because they cannot afford to live and because, when it comes to the essentials of life—particularly, paying their rent and paying their mortgages—they can't afford to pay for anything else. They can't afford to pay for their medications. They can't afford to put shoes on their kids' feet. Food has now become the discretionary item. That's what they say—'Well, we can't afford to spend anything on food'—and they will go and access food relief. This is the current situation. We have skyrocketing rents. We have a massive shortage of housing. This has been totally self-inflicted by the neoliberal policies such as those that Senator Scarr has just been espousing—that everything is sweetness and light. The neoliberal policies of state and federal governments over decades are what have made this crisis. We've got 640,000 households in severe rental stress. Because of chronic underfunding of public and community housing, we have got a shortfall of 750,000 homes in the public and affordable housing sector. So, while Senator Scarr might like to talk about queues in Scandinavia, I'll talk to him about the decades-long queues for people accessing public and community housing in every state and territory in Australia. There has been a massive failure of government policy. We need to have a huge increase in investment way beyond what the current government is investing through the housing affordability future fund—a massive increase in investment in public and affordable housing—and we need to have controls on rents. I have had the privilege of chairing the Senate inquiry into the worsening rental crisis in recent months, and we have heard from so many renters who have been in so much stress. The evidence has been compelling and heartfelt, and it has really underlined the severity and the urgency of the housing crisis. The challenges that people face can be summed up as four things: the lack of genuinely affordable housing, including public, social and community housing; unregulated and skyrocketing rents; inadequate tenant protections; and systems that fundamentally favour landlords. This bill, obviously, is addressing one of those—the need for rent freezes and then ongoing rents caps to address that issue of those skyrocketing rents—so that people aren't having to put up with and cope with those rents. I'll tell you the story of Jo, who shared that, since moving to Queensland, she has had to move seven times, costing her over $14,000. She told the committee: In several of the properties I've rented, maintenance has been very poor. …   …   … Getting air conditioning installed in a top-floor flat with no ceiling fans in Queensland was problematic, despite temperatures exceeding 40 degrees Celsius. This same landlord increased the rent at every chance she could. When I finally called time and moved out, she did the same to the next tenant and the next tenant and the next tenant. In the year following my departure, she drove three tenants out with this aggressive approach. Her response? It's what the market demands. We need to put a stop to this, and this is what the Greens' bill would do. I'll also tell you that rent controls and rent freezes are popular. People know that that is what is needed. I was also at a briefing yesterday and was told about a recent poll by the Susan McKinnon Foundation. It revealed that Australians believe that capping rent increases is within their top five housing priorities for state governments. Renters want action, but the Labor government is refusing to listen here. Yes, it's a priority of the state governments, but we have got a federal government that has got Labor governments wall to wall across the mainland that could be taking action to be introducing rent controls and rent freezes as per this bill and could be funding a massive increase in the amount of affordable and community housing so that we would be taking the serious action that is needed to tackle the rental crisis. The Greens are listening to the renters. The Greens are the party for renters. If people want to see action on rental prices, we believe that we have got the answers. We know that we need to have rent freezes and rent controls. We know that governments have to urgently invest in public, social, community and genuinely affordable housing. That's why we have acted. We got the government to commit an extra $3 billion as part of our negotiations on the Housing Australia future Fund legislation. The third thing we need to do to make life bearable for people on low incomes who are struggling the most, who are the ones that cannot afford to pay these skyrocketing rents, is to increase income support. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 Senator Rice, the time for this debate has now expired. You will be in continuation. BUSINESS 14 BUSINESS Rearrangement 14 10:25 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I seek leave to move a motion relating to the consideration of government business as circulated in the chamber. Leave not granted. Senator CASH I0M Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, I move: That so much of standing orders be suspended as to prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the consideration of government business. This motion concerns the Attorney-General and the Attorney-General's Department and a piece of legislation that is before the chamber. The now Attorney-General, when he had the title shadow Attorney-General of Australia, stated, 'Labor is of course always concerned when legislation is rushed through the parliament without the usual process of scrutiny and debate'—it gets better, colleagues; it gets better—'which are the cornerstones for a healthy parliamentary democracy'. Well, I will stop quoting there and throw in my comment: a very unhealthy parliamentary democracy is going to be on display this afternoon when the government moves its own motion to gag debate, to put in place a guillotine on a piece of legislation that is possibly one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before this parliament. And why do I say that? Because family law touches each and every Australian. If you are not involved in the family law system yourself, you can almost guarantee that you will know someone, whether it is a family member or whether it is a close friend, who is going through the family law system. Major changes to a system of law that touches every single Australian are not going to be properly scrutinised in this place. Why? Because it was pretty obvious yesterday, in the short time in committee that we had, when we put the questions to the government that they were unable to answer them. Now, what did Mr Dreyfus say in relation to legislation that is not properly scrutinised? He had a lot to say when he was in opposition. He has next to nothing to say now that he is in government. In fact, as someone said to me, 'Hypocrisy is thy name.' If you look up the word 'hypocrisy' in the dictionary it now states 'Attorney-General of Australia, Mark Dreyfus'! Mr Dreyfus said when you do not have proper scrutiny of legislation, 'Problems can be overlooked and mistakes can be made.' Well, guess what? There are plenty of problems in the legislation that is before the Australian Senate and, I can assure you, we are not going to have the opportunity to scrutinise it. Now, why is that a problem? This legislation, as I said, touches almost every Australian family. Thousands of Australian families will find themselves going through the pain and sadness of separation and, in some of those cases, will actually end up the Family Court system. This Senate is not going to have the opportunity, as Mr Dreyfus always said when they were in opposition, to properly scrutinise this legislation. That is, quite frankly, an absolute disgrace. This is a bill that goes to the heart of our nation, the cohesion of the family unit, and that is why it needs scrutiny. That is why we need clarity about the changes that are being proposed. However, why are Labor doing this? Well, in the first instance, this is an Attorney-General Dreyfus special. Mr Dreyfus, when in opposition, for goodness sake, gave speech after speech after speech—he loved to lecture; he loved to preach—about transparency. I only wish there was a journalist out there who would collate what Mr Dreyfus said in relation to transparency, responsibility and accountability and how he would be the person to give this to Australia when he got into government. But, when he dropped the title 'shadow' and became Attorney-General, 'hypocrisy' became Mr Dreyfus's name. He was a good preacher—he was the best preacher up there on the pulpit—but, when it comes to actually practising, putting in place, what he preached while in opposition, Mr Dreyfus is left seriously wanting. 10:30 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales This is a stunt, and it's not a very well-thought-through or capable stunt. There is, of course, going to be an opportunity later in the day, through the hours motion that is on the Notice Paper in the proper way, for Senator Cash or one of her colleagues—in what would still be a stunt, but a better-thought-through stunt—to move an amendment. The government will be opposing this poorly-thought-through proposition. I move: That the motion be put. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 The question is that the question be put.  

The Senate divided. [10:36]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator O'Neill)

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

Question negatived.

 10:40 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I don't believe it is unreasonable to ask for this debate to continue till 10 o'clock tonight. The only reason why the government is calling a close to this is that the minister is incompetent, being unable to answer the questions that I put to him yesterday. The only thing he could say—which he said constantly, time and time again—was: 'It's in the best interests of the child.' When I raised different issues with him, he couldn't answer. I even referred to section 51(xxii) of the Constitution, where it talks about parental rights. I am galled by Senator Ayres's comment today that this is a political stunt. This is not a political stunt. I have been heavily involved in family law for years in this place. I got up a joint parliamentary inquiry to deal with family law. What I have explained here is the most important issue that faces many Australians. Surely we have a right to debate it. I have a right to put across the views of those Australians who feel they are not being heard or listened to. We have to understand the problems in our court system if we are to find the right answers and the right legislation to address this whole issue. It's not just about the rights of the children; it's also about the rights of the parents and how they're treated in our court system. We have to look at domestic violence issues as well. We have to look at the ICLs, and we have to look at the recordings. We have to give them a fair go, a fair chance. It's not right that this legislation has been rushed through. As I said yesterday, it is so important to debate this. The government has rushed this legislation through. They have pages and pages of amendments to their own bills. That tells you something. They have got it wrong. They are the ones playing politics here. We should be debating this. I call on my fellow senators, I call on the crossbench and I call on Senator David Pocock: we are here to debate and to represent the people of this nation; give us the opportunity to represent them. We can only do that by having our say on the floor of parliament. Let the people hear what we have to say. Call out the government if they're wrong in their legislation. Part of this legislation is right. I support parts of this legislation, but let's debate it. This is no stunt. It is so important for us to get this right, and yet the government wants to shut down debate on this important issue. I've seen Senator Pocock stand up in this chamber and talk passionately about things that are important to him. This is important to me, and it's important to many Australians. Please give us the opportunity to have this debate. We can finish at 10 o'clock tonight and go to a vote tomorrow. Where is the harm in that? That's what our job in this chamber is—to be the voice for Australians. Why shut it down? It's so important. I want to take this opportunity to thank Senator Van, Senator Babet, Senator Lambie and Senator Tyrrell—crossbenchers with common sense—for supporting the request not to guillotine this but to open it for debate. It's going to come down to Senator David Pocock to support us—the opposition and the rest of the crossbench—to allow this debate to formally go ahead so we can continue with the debate tonight. I'm asking Senator Pocock: please, give us the opportunity to have this debate and let it go through the process that the people of Australia expect to happen here. Too many times in this place, with legislation on important social issues, we've seen the government—which has the numbers with the Greens; they just back them up all the time—just shut down debate. They're not interested in listening to debate in this parliament, because it doesn't suit their agenda. That's not what it's about. When Labor were in opposition, they accused the then government of shutting down debate. I tell you what: this is the worst government I have ever seen when it comes to accountability. The Prime Minister stood up and said, 'We're going to have accountability.' There has been anything but accountability. I've been in parliament with four prime ministers and this is the worst government I have ever seen for lack of accountability, shutting down debate and guillotining. You've got your own hidden agenda, which is an absolute shame on you. And you have the audacity to say this is a stunt. You're the stunt! 10:45 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria There are two propositions before the Senate today about how we manage the business the Senate needs to do this week. On the one hand we have a proposition from the government that two very important legislative packages, one on family law and one on migration law, should be rammed through today with almost no scrutiny and almost no debate. The alternative proposition put by Senator Cash recognises the importance of those legislative packages. It doesn't seek to hold them up or obstruct them from passing; it just says we should still do that business this week but we should do it in a less rushed fashion to make sure this chamber can equip its responsibilities to properly scrutinise that legislation. We can have a proper committee process for both those bills. We can ask the questions we need to ask. We can move the amendments we need to move. The crossbench can do the same, and we will still leave this week having provided the government with an adequate opportunity to pass both those packages. No-one in this chamber is seeking to prevent the government from achieving the support of this chamber for either of these packages. We're just saying, 'Do it on Thursday instead of on Wednesday, so we can spend the time we have here as a chamber properly scrutinising these propositions.' These are not minor bills. These are not inconsequential bills. These are significant and important pieces of legislation. Senator Cash has already spoken at length about the family law bills and the possible unintended consequences of some of the provisions of those bills, on which the parliament must fulfil its responsibilities to appropriately scrutinise and consider. Also on the guillotine today from the government is a very important and significant change to our engagement with the Pacific. We in the opposition support the government's objectives of closer engagement with the Pacific. We're very proud of our legacy of the steps we took to ensure that that was the case, and we agree with the government that that should be taken further and extended. But we have an in-principle concern about one of the critical elements of this bill, which is that, for the first time, the government proposes to introduce handing out a visa, and the pathway to permanent residency and ultimately citizenship in Australia, by lottery. We have never done that before in this country. We have never allocated access to our country by lottery before, and that needs to be appropriately considered and scrutinised by this chamber. We think we should have a proper committee stage on that bill. We think that many amendments which have already been circulated by the opposition, the crossbench and the Greens should have the opportunity to be debated, appropriately considered and decided on by this chamber. That will not be the case if we are forced, by guillotine, to consider these this evening. We have two days left of sitting this week. We are prepared to sit late tonight to facilitate the consideration of these bills. We are prepared to facilitate the passage of these bills by Thursday afternoon before we leave. No-one is trying to stop the government from legislating either of these bills. We are just trying to seek proper scrutiny of them. It's not surprising the government is being hypocritical. It's not surprising that, on their journey from this side of the chamber to that side of the chamber, they've suddenly changed their perspective on legislative scrutiny. All of a sudden it's completely and fine and appropriate to ram things through this chamber without proper consideration. But it would be very disappointing if those on the crossbench and the Greens have changed their perspective. They're not in government. They don't have trappings of power of the ministerial offices and they're not walking around on the blue carpet. They are still on the crossbench, and they should uphold the principles they have often come into this place to talk about—including Senator David Pocock, a new member of this chamber, who has spoken very sincerely, very eloquently and very powerfully about the important principles of transparency and scrutiny. I hope Senator David Pocock and the other crossbenchers, including the Greens, live up to the values they have espoused in this chamber. I hope they are consistent with the things they have argued for in this chamber, which is the appropriate exercise of this chamber's function in scrutinising legislation. I hope they have not done a dirty deal with the government to ram through legislation without appropriate legislative scrutiny. That is our function as senators, that is our function as a Senate chamber, and we should be allowed to perform that function. Voting for Senator Cash's motion will facilitate the passage of this legislation with proper scrutiny. If the Greens and the crossbenchers are true to what they say, they will vote for Senator Cash's motion to allow this chamber to appropriately consider its responsibilities. They only need to turn to the Attorney-General. When he was the shadow Attorney-General he spoke eloquently and powerfully about the cornerstone of a healthy parliamentary democracy being the usual process of scrutiny and debate. They only need to live by the words that the Labor Party espoused when they were in opposition, hold them to their own words now that they are in government and not let them get away with ramming these bills through today. 10:50 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Here we are again today with Labor proposing to guillotine debate on bills. This will come up in the formal motions. It has become Labor's custom and practice in this chamber to guillotine debate on bills and to stop orders for the production of documents, and who helps them every time? The Greens. They say they are the masters of transparency and scrutiny, but what do they do? They guillotine debate almost every time. They guillotine debate on just about everything. Let's see who else supports them. Will it be the usual cronies or will they stand up and support debate? It's true that the Liberal motion is also setting a guillotine, but at least it restores some hours for debate, and that's what's fundamentally important. It's extended until 10 o'clock tonight, thank you, and extended tomorrow before imposing a limit. The Liberals are trying to compromise. That's why today we're supporting their extension of hours motion and sitting late tonight. Here we are again with the Labor Party avoiding debate on bills that are the subject of so many amendments. The Family Law Act is being amended and the government is amending its own amendment bills—not just once, twice or three times but many times. They won't let discussion happened on that. The fact that the Labor government is putting forward so many amendments to its own legislation shows that the legislation is hasty. That's why we must have scrutiny of this. The Family Law Act has been called the slaughterhouse of the nation. It has been killing people in this country—killing families and killing kids—since 1975 when it was introduced by the Labor Party following UN policy. That is a fact. There have been 48 years of the slaughterhouse of the nation thanks to Lionel Murphy and the Labor Party. Now they are introducing bills to make it even more complex. They won't allow scrutiny of that complexity. What are they hiding? We also see that other parties, including my own, have got a significant number of amendments in this chamber. We're not even allowed to discuss our own amendments or explain our own amendments. What kind of democracy is that? What kind of scrutiny is that? What kind of responsibility is that? Look at the two migration bills. Think of the impact on housing. We will be getting 1.2 million new arrivals in this country this year. Where are they going to sleep—under what roof and in what bed? What will that do to the cost of housing and the cost of rent in this country? Labor at the same time is invoking UN 2050 net-zero policies, which are raising the cost of living dramatically. We have high inflation raising the cost of living dramatically. Housing is going up, and they want to bring in more people. We have a lottery, a ballot. Energy prices and inflation—they won't allow scrutiny of this. Instead of consulting properly in the first place, the government has chosen to put forward poor legislation and just ram it through. The Labor Party need to start doing what Anthony Albanese promised as opposition leader and start listening and consulting, not walking with their ears closed and ramming through legislation. Didn't you learn from last Saturday? The disinformation and misinformation bill will shut down debate. Not only do you want to shut down debate here but you want to shut down debate right across the country. That's the modern Labor Party for you. This is not how the Senate is supposed to work. The Senate is supposed to be the house of review on behalf of the people. We were elected to represent the people and to debate issues for the people. We're not their masters; we serve them. This is the people's house, and Australians expect their senators to give each piece of legislation careful, extensive and respectful scrutiny. The motion from the Labor Party this afternoon shows complete contempt yet again for the Senate and for the people of Australia who put us in this House and who we are supposed to serve. Labor promised consultation and listening, yet, in practice, shows us Labor does not even know what those words mean. 10:55 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I too would like to see more debate in committee of the whole for this really important— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 My apologies, Senator Pocock. I am afraid the time allocated for the debate has now expired. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Cash to suspend standing orders be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [11:00]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator O'Neill)

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

Question negatived.

 BILLS 18 BILLS Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023, Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023 18

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

Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023

Second Reading 18 11:09 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Paterson be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [11:09]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator O'Neill)

 28 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. 33 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. (Teller) Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 11:11 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I move my second reading amendment: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes that providing Pacific Islander migrants with a streamlined pathway to obtain Australian citizenship would contribute to attracting and retaining the pool of talent needed to address significant labour shortages in essential industries such as defence, agriculture, healthcare, education, childcare and public safety; and (b) calls on the Government to develop policy options to provide citizens of countries that are included in the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (PALM) scheme and who already reside in Australia with a streamlined pathway to obtain Australian citizenship". I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave not granted. Question agreed to. Original question, as amended, agreed to. Bills read a second time. In Committee 19 11:13 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I want to make a brief contribution in committee in relation to this, which is the delivery of an election commitment of the Albanese government to a Pacific engagement visa, to allow up to 3,000 nationals from Pacific countries and Timor-Leste to come to Australia as permanent migrants each year. This will grow the Pacific and Timor-Leste diaspora in Australia and will further strengthen our people-to-people connections across the Pacific family, encouraging greater cultural, business and educational exchange. Colleagues, you don't have to look very far to see the valuable contributions that Pacific peoples have made to this country, as community and faith leaders, as successful businesspeople, as artists and, of course, on the rugby field. We want to strengthen and grow these communities here and across the region. This visa will ensure more of our closest neighbours can call Australia home. It will create new opportunities for the people of the Pacific and Timor-Leste to live, work and be educated in Australia—deepening our bonds and enriching our communities. I said in a speech to the National Press Club earlier this year that we made a clear decision to focus on repairing and rebuilding our relationships with the countries of the Pacific as soon as we came into government because we see the Pacific as family, because of the shortcomings of the previous government that we needed to remedy and because of who we are as a Labor government. We spent the last 17 months travelling to the Pacific, listening to the Pacific and acting together to build a region where we determine our own destiny. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs, I've had the privilege of visiting every Pacific Islands Forum member and attending two PIF leaders summits. We've heard the calls for better integration and access to our labour markets through a dedicated migration intake. We've consulted with Pacific partners on the design and implementation of this scheme, and we are pleased the scheme has been welcomed by governments across the region. The bills are a first step to deliver this important visa. As has been discussed during second reading speeches, there will be a two-stage process to apply for this visa. These bills enable the administration of this visa through an initial ballot process. In the first stage, interested persons will register in a ballot. The ballot will then randomly select people to proceed to the second stage of applying for a visa, so it is a demand management mechanism. The ballot will only serve as an invitation to apply for the visa. To be granted a visa, applicants will need to meet eligibility criteria—a job offer in Australia, and English language, health and character requirements. The ballot will be open to eligible nationals of participating countries and Timor-Leste, including Pacific nationals already here in Australia on a valid temporary visa, such as those working on the PALM scheme. A ballot system will ensure equal and transparent access to the visa pathway. We know that demand for this visa is expected to exceed the number of visas available by a very large margin. That's why the ballot system is the best way to manage the application process and to guarantee equitable access for people to apply, regardless of skill level. The use of a ballot is based on Pacific migration schemes that have operated successfully in New Zealand for decades. The United States also uses a ballot process for its green card migration scheme. This process will also help avoid some of the brain drain concerns that so many Pacific governments hold, and it is the basis on which Pacific partners have said they will participate in the scheme. The Deputy Prime Minister of Fiji, the Hon. Biman Prasad, said recently: It seems that the proposed lottery mechanism has become the sticking point in Australia. However, this is the mechanism used by New Zealand and widely accepted in the Pacific as fair. Any other approach used by Australia would raise suspicion in the region. The ballot will also reduce the processing time and cost to applicants. There have been some valid questions raised about why we can't simply give engagement visas to current PALM workers. PALM workers make an immense contribution to the agricultural and services sectors, filling labour shortages and providing vital incomes back home. We have delivered the most PALM workers in the scheme's history, with nearly 38,000 workers currently living and working in Australia on a temporary basis. But it is important to note that we have agreements with Pacific governments, who have signed up to this scheme on the basis that it is temporary. These workers come to Australia to generate skills and income, and, crucially, they return home. Simply converting PALM workers to Pacific engagement visas, as the Liberals and Nationals insist, would pull the rug out from under our Pacific partners. It also demonstrates they've learnt nothing from their failures in government about listening to the Pacific. It would increase brain drain and skew the spread of engagement visa holders to those countries that participate in PALM, instead of the broader Pacific family. These are serious policy considerations, and I wish to thank those on the crossbench in this place who have engaged in this discussion thoughtfully and constructively. I wish that the opposition had done so. It is very disappointing that on this issue those opposite have refused to support it. It is consistent with nine long years of disrespect to the Pacific family. Who can forget Mr Dutton joking about water lapping at the door? In government, those opposite dropped the ball in the Pacific and failed to ensure Australian remained a partner of choice. They know that competition in the region intensifies and they know that, as that competition intensifies, our natural advantages lie in our people and our communities, in access to the Australian labour market and in stronger cultural and business connections. Yet, they still refuse to listen—to listen to the Pacific family and to the national interest imperatives. And what beggars belief is they say it's because they don't like ballots but it was actually their idea. Last year, a Liberal chaired committee recommended a dedicated Pacific migration intake modelled on the New Zealand ballot. Senator Fawcett was on this committee. They recommended a ballot in government, and now they're saying no in opposition. Even when it comes to our abiding national interests, like strengthening Australia's relationship with the Pacific, even when Australia's interests are being challenged by others, those opposite are putting politics first. When this is an important issue to promote unity for the national interest, they promote mistrust to serve their own political interest. It is Mr Dutton's game plan. If those opposite were serious about ensuring Australia remains the partner of choice in a more contested region, then they would stop playing politics. The countries of the region are navigating the twin challenges of the climate crisis and escalating strategic competition, all while grappling with the economic aftershocks of the pandemic. It has never been more important for Australia to build a peaceful, stable and prosperous region and to do so with others, a region where the forum family is responsible for our collective security and is equipped to face our shared challenges together. This is only becoming more challenging, especially when countries seek to undermine this regional approach. Colleagues, we know things will not go back to how they were before. We should expect Australia's regional interests to continue being challenged for years to come. We know that as a result of the previous government's approach Australia lost a decade in the Pacific. We know that the opportunity to be the only partner of choice has been lost by the previous government. Now, our priority must be to remain a partner of choice. That means we have to work harder than ever, and it should be a national effort. I call on the opposition to put politics aside and be part of that effort. In delivering this new visa, we want to make a uniquely Australian contribution to building a stronger and more united Pacific family. We can't achieve the future we want alone, and neither can other members of the family. All of us are counting on each other because we share an ocean and we share a future. The Pacific engagement visa will expand and strengthen the diaspora communities that call Australia home. It will contribute to the economic development of our partners through enhanced remittances and more opportunities for skills exchange and investment, and Australia, as a nation, will be stronger for it. I thank, again, the Greens and the independent members of the crossbench for the mature and constructive way they have engaged on this issue, and I regret that the alternative government did not have the maturity to do so. 11:22 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I am very pleased to be able to rise in this place and indicate the Greens's support for this legislation, and I want to thank both Senator Wong and the minister for immigration, Mr Giles, for their very constructive engagement with the Greens, over a relatively long period of time, which has facilitated our support for this legislation. I'm very pleased that the minister for immigration has confirmed, by a letter to me dated yesterday, that the government will implement a review into some of the ableism that is entrenched in Australia's migration system. The part of the ableism which the government has confirmed will be reviewed is the significant cost threshold. The significant cost threshold is a mechanism that allows for the deportation from Australia of people on temporary visas who the government, through the mechanism of the significant cost threshold, forms a view will be too burdensome for the Australian community to support. This overwhelmingly captures disabled people. But it's not just about the deportation of disabled people—this mechanism is actually used to refuse visas for people who apply to come to Australia on a temporary basis if they exceed the significant cost threshold. This is a matter that the Australian Greens have been fighting to address for many years—in fact, for well over a decade. Whilst this review ultimately doesn't commit the government to implementing any particular policy outcome, it does crack open the issue of ableism in Australia's migration system. Importantly, it allows—and this has been committed to by Minister Giles—public consultation so that people, and groups that represent people, impacted by this ableist part of Australia's migration system can make submissions to the review. Critically, that review, which will commence as soon as is practicable, will ultimately be made public after a period of time for the government to consider the outcomes and the report that is generated by the Chief Medical Officer. At the moment, there is a mechanism in Australia's migration system that allows the government to deport disabled people or refuse a visa to disabled people. That will now be reviewed, and it will be incumbent on the government to address this ableism. Australia's migration system should be a non-discriminatory migration system. Unfortunately, it is a long, long way from being non-discriminatory. We know that our migration system discriminates against people based on their mode of arrival into this country. If you arrive by plane to claim asylum in this country, that claim will be accepted and processed. If you arrive on a boat to claim asylum in this country it's: 'Off to offshore detention in Nauru with you. You don't get to stay in Australia and make a claim for asylum.' That is absolutely discriminatory and it is racist, because I guarantee you now that if a group of white folks arrived here by boat they would not be sent to Nauru. They would never have been sent to Manus Island to endure the deprivations that the men on Manus Island faced for so many years. They would never be sent to Nauru to endure the deprivations that innocent women and children on Nauru faced for so many years. We discriminate based on mode of arrival, and it is contrary to our obligations under the Refugee Convention. We also discriminate against people with health conditions and disabled people via the mechanism of the significant cost threshold. That will now be reviewed. This is a significant step towards reducing and, hopefully, one day ending the ableism that is entrenched within Australia's migration system. So I do want to thank Senator Wong, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and Mr Giles, the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, for a number of discussions I've had with them both in recent times and to indicate how grateful we are for Minister Giles indicating to me by letter yesterday that this review would be commenced. The one element that the government absolutely has to address through this review is the capacity for the significant cost threshold to be used to deport disabled children who are born in this country. We should have a right to citizenship for everyone born in Australia. So many other countries around the world have that; we should have that in Australia. Leaving that aside for a moment, it is an absolute disgrace that parents come to Australia—invited in as our guests on temporary visas—live here, work here, pay taxes here and give birth to a child who has a disability, and then that disability is used by the Australian government as a mechanism to deport the child and, therefore, deport the family. That is disgrace. I acknowledge that Minister Giles has positively intervened in all such cases that have come before him seeking ministerial intervention. I thank him for those interventions from the bottom of my heart, but the simple fact is that those families still have to go through lengthy quasi-judicial and judicial processes before they can apply to the minister for the minister's intervention. They are time consuming, they are anxiety inducing and it takes a lot of money to go through those processes. They create massive amounts of stress and uncertainty in people's lives. The government needs to respond to this review by ensuring that no child born in Australia to temporary visa holders is deported by the use of the significant-cost threshold mechanism. I want to place on the record that that is the absolute minimum the Greens expect the government to do from this review. The government also needs to respond to this review by massively increasing the significant-cost threshold so that fewer people are caught by this inhumane, bureaucratic instrument. The government also needs to be abundantly clear about how these thresholds are set, why they are set where they are and what the process for setting these thresholds is. The government also needs to make sure that, when the costs are calculated, they are calculated in a real-world way but also in a fair way. For example, the inclusion of the cost of special education in the calculation of these costs needs to end. We will work together with the disability community to make sure that they are fully informed about their capacity to feed into this review and that they keep the pressure on for equitable and just outcomes from this review. I want to end by acknowledging my friend and colleague Senator Jordon Steele-John. Senator Steele-John is an amazing advocate for disabled people in this place. He has come into this parliament and almost single-handedly delivered the disability royal commission. He has worked very, very closely with me and a range of other senators right across the political spectrum to make sure that we understand the challenges faced by disabled people in this country and that we work together to respond to those challenges. I want to say on a personal level that I have a far greater appreciation for and understanding of the challenges faced by disabled people thanks to my friendship and my professional relationship with Senator Steele-John. I just want to thank him for educating me and allowing me to understand those things. We will proudly support this legislation, and we commend the bill to the chamber. 11:32 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I have a few questions, actually. I'm just wondering why—I'm assuming that you want six months after the royal assent once this bill goes through. Sorry, you're doing this, Senator Watt—is that correct? Senator Watt 245759 Yes. Senator LAMBIE 250026 Sorry, I was a bit confused. I'm assuming that, because of all the stages, it's going to take about six months for you to get this set up. Is this why there is a delay in the time from royal assent during which we can't decide on bringing these people in immediately? 11:33 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Lambie. This is obviously relevant to your amendment. It's certainly the government's intention to progress these reforms as quickly as possible. There's obviously a lot of interest in the Pacific in taking up these visas. There's a lot of interest in Australia in having people able to take up those visas. It'll take a little bit of time to be able to implement it, but we certainly want to get it happening as quickly as we can. Senator Lambie 250026 Okay. Senator WATT 245759 Just to add to that, as you're probably aware, Senator Lambie, and as I understand it, under the bill that we're putting forward, commencement would be on proclamation of the legislation. So that wouldn't be a terribly long period of time. 11:34 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania On that, I withdraw amendment (1) on sheet 2137. But I do have some questions. I'm just wondering whether the government has considered doing this because of the state of our defence forces and considered actually moving it over and giving maybe 3,000 to 5,000 of them the option to come in on the proviso that they join our defence forces. Right now, we are in a state of disarray in our defence forces. Nobody is joining, and people are leaving. That is where we're at. I'm asking you whether your government has been in discussions about maybe looking at doing this with our Pacific islanders. 11:35 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you for withdrawing that amendment, Senator Lambie. I think the government certainly acknowledges some of the issues around our defence forces that you've raised, and we do have a range of strategies underway to deal with that. However, our view is that there are a range of different occupations that these new visas can make a big contribution towards—rather than restricting them in the way that you're putting forward. 11:36 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I'm asking that because your strategies are not working and they're not going to work. I've heard your strategies; that's rubbish. I'm asking you if you'll look at this as an option further on down the line and asking, whilst you are getting this disorganised over the next six months, that you look at this as a new category to happen within the next six to 12 months, specific to those who want to join the Australian Defence Force and come here to live and be part of the nation. That's what I'm asking you for. If you want to advise me to go and set up a committee to look at that, that's fine—then advise me. If it's not something the government is interested in looking at, let me know so that I can move forward and find another option or another way forward on this. 11:36 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland It has just been drawn to my attention that your second reading amendment, which the government has supported, does allow for the people issued with these visas to take up or to address Labor shortages in industries including defence. So that option is available. I guess where there might not yet be agreement is on the number, but I'm sure that we'd be happy to have some discussions with you about that. Of course, it's worth remembering that one of the objectives of this bill and this new visa is to provide those who take up the visas with a streamlined pathway towards citizenship in Australia as well. I'm sure we'd be happy to have some further discussions with you about your views on the need for the use of this in the defence forces. 11:38 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2050, as circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (after line 14), after subsection 46(4A), insert: (4B) However, the regulations cannot prescribe criteria mentioned in subsection (4A) for any of the following visas: (a) protection visas; (b) temporary safe haven visas; (c) visas classified by the regulations as: (i) Refugee and Humanitarian (Class XB) visas; or (ii) Temporary (Humanitarian Concern) (Class UO) visas; or (iii) Resolution of Status (Class CD) visas. (2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (after line 21), after subsection 46C(1), insert: Note: Criteria mentioned in subsection 46(4A) cannot be prescribed for visas mentioned in subsection 46(4B). Pacific island nations and Timor-Leste are part of our Pacific family. Whilst we've heard governments from both sides refer to them as the Pacific family, I think there is a long way to go to make good on that use of the word 'family'. I've been fortunate enough to, over many years, count Pasifika Australians as some of my closest friends. It's only when you start to see into Pacific island families that you see what family really means. It means truly standing up for your family and serving them and being there for them when they need your support. In many ways, Australia has failed the Pacific when it comes to things like climate change, which is an existential threat. We will continue to fail them if we continue to expand the fossil fuel industry. They deserve more leadership on climate action. We have the new Fijian Prime Minister here today. This is an existential threat for the Pacific. In Fiji, the families of friends of mine have had to move higher, further up from the sea, due to salinity and king tides inundating the land. It is urgent that the government step up when it comes to climate change. I would like to thank both major parties for the progress they have made on this bill, particularly Minister Wong, who is really stepping up Australia's engagement with the Pacific. Most Australians would agree it has been genuine. She has put in a huge amount of work and travel to start to build those bonds and to truly be there for the Pacific. This is an important step forward when it comes to pathways to permanent residency for people moving to Australia to contribute, but we need to be doing it in a way where we are not creating a brain drain for our Pacific island neighbours. We must ensure that when people arrive here they are supported and able to flourish. Pacific island nations have much to contribute. I'm hopeful that this scheme will allow people to come here, to put down roots, to be part of our communities and to bring the rich culture that the Pacific can offer Australian communities. We know how important remittances—people sending back money—are, not just in the Pacific but around the world. It is a huge part of developing nations' economies. We saw during COVID-19 the huge spike in remittances to Pacific island countries when people saw that their families were doing it tough. In Fiji alone, remittances increased by 10.9 per cent over the year between 2019 and 2020. These are significant numbers. You're talking from US$270 million up to US$301 million. As a country we will have to continue to engage with the Pacific. We have a pretty patchy history when it comes to some of our interventions, some of the exploitative practices that Australian mining companies have undertaken in the Pacific, in Papua New Guinea, and there is much work to be done by Australian governments. We also need to confront the climate crisis that we are facing. We are fuelling it with our policies here in Australia. We hear the major parties say, 'Well, we are a small nation and we don't contribute that much.' Per capita, it is off the charts. We can't continue to look Pacific island neighbours in the eye and at the same time enable Woodside and Santos and other companies to expand fossil fuel production, because climate change is truly existential for them. We will have to start looking at not just lotteries for 3,000 people but potentially mass solutions for people who are losing their homes in the next few decades, unless we see the kind of bold leadership and action that a middle power like Australia can play on the world stage. As one of the biggest fossil fuel exporters in the world, Australia should take a strong stand and transition rapidly, not approve new fossil fuel projects. At every opportunity, we should be raising the concerns, raising the voices of our Pacific island neighbours who, for too long now, have been left to call for more ambition, who have been undermined at COPs by successive Australian governments. We have an opportunity now. We have a government that truly cares about the Pacific and is engaging and is building on the work the former government did there. This is a really welcome step forward, but we have to ensure we don't drop the ball when it comes to climate change. At the moment, we are. No amount of aid and development money and migration pathways will make up for people losing their homes, losing that connection to the place that they are from, that they live on, that they love. While I thank the government for their work on this, I urge them to take seriously this climate crisis we live in. I spoke yesterday of some of the Australian scientists that are grappling with despair every day. They are grappling with, 'Should I continue to be a climate scientist or do I need to try and do something else to wake our government up?' How much more do we need to know? My amendment would simply ensure this ballot is not used for humanitarian visas or refugees or vulnerable people, who shouldn't have to rely on the minister being a nice person or thinking nicely towards them. We have international obligations as a country. This has been something that has been awfully politicised over a long time now, and we have to ensure there are guardrails to ensure this sort of scheme can't be used in the future for our international obligations when it comes to people fleeing persecution and seeking asylum. We have a great opportunity as a country to build on this and truly make Australia a welcoming country when it comes to the Pacific. These sorts of schemes are great, but the main game is climate. I urge the government and the opposition to back them in there, and, as a country, to potentially start looking at things like windfall profit taxes so we can start contributing when it comes to adaptation and when it comes to loss and damage, which is something we don't hear enough about in here. As one of the wealthiest countries in the world, we have an obligation to help out not just in our region but globally when it comes to the kinds of climate fuelled events that communities which simply do not have the resources to deal with them are going to have to face. That's where loss and damage comes in and that's where stepping up adaptation measures in the Pacific comes in, and someone needs to pay for that. The question is: should Australian taxpayers pay for that, or should the fossil fuel companies contribute some of the extraordinary profits we've seen them make over the last few years to solve some of the problems they've helped create? 11:48 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I indicate the Australian Greens will be supporting Senator David Pocock's amendment. The Australian Greens have a very similar amendment on the books to the one Senator David Pocock has just moved. I note that during the Senate inquiry by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees recommended: … statutory safeguards be introduced in the Bill to expressly exclude the application of the ballot to visas that respond to Australia's international refugee and human rights obligations to those seeking protection. This would include refugee and humanitarian visas and especially where the right to family unity exists. That is one of the reasons why the Greens recommended, in our minority report to the Senate inquiry, that the bill be amended to explicitly prohibit the use of powers provided in the bill for any visa subclasses within Australia's refugee and humanitarian program. I hope this amendment passes through the Senate today because it is critical that the ballot process not be used in regard to refugee and humanitarian visas. There are well-established processes that the Australian government engages in to determine priority for filling our quotas under the refugee and humanitarian visa program, and those processes, although not always perfect, have endured and provide at least a modicum of fairness in prioritising those who have the highest need. A ballot system, of course, would be completely inappropriate for humanitarian and refugee visas. I acknowledge the points made by Senator Wong in her contribution earlier today when she spoke about the fact that many of our Pacific island neighbours and friends support a ballot system for this particular visa class—just to be clear, not for refugee and humanitarian visas but for Pacific engagement visas. We obviously, having supported this legislation, accept the proposition that a ballot should be used in regard to this specific class. I want to be very clear though: the government will have to bring in disallowable regulations in order to be able to use the ballot process for any particular visa class, and the Australian Greens absolutely reserve the right to examine that on a case-by-case basis and to vote to disallow any of those instruments if we determine that it would not be in the public interest or in the best interests of people engaging with our visa process for those regulations to be created. So I want to place very clearly on the record that we reserve our right in regard to all such instruments. I also want to say that one thing about the ballot process is that it removes either the reality or the perception that somehow patronage or status can be used in order to leverage visa outcomes. A ballot is a ballot, and hopefully—I have no reason to doubt it—the ballot will be run fairly. What that does is make sure that, no matter what your status in society is, no matter how much money you have, no matter who you know and no matter what your connections or your patronage lines are, it will be a fair process for all, and the Australian Greens absolutely believe in fairness of process. The last thing I want to say in this contribution is this. Minister Wong has made a lot of comments today and publicly about Australia's engagement with Pacific nations and with our Pacific family, and fair enough too. I understand why she's said those things as foreign minister, and it is true that our engagement with the Pacific region is now conducted in a more mature and engaging way than it was under the previous government. I have no doubt about that, and I thank and congratulate Minister Wong and everyone who is involved in that engagement. But there is an elephant in the room with regard to our engagement with Pacific nations, and that is this government's addiction to coal and gas and its absolute refusal to stand up to its corporate donors and stop approving new coal and gas projects. Our Pacific neighbours are desperate for the Australian government to stop approving new coal and gas projects. They have said so publicly time after time. They have begged this government to stop approving new coal and gas mines, and the reason they are begging, imploring and asking time after time after time for this government to stop approving new coal and gas mines is that their countries are literally disappearing under the surface of the ocean thanks to sea level rise driven by climate change caused to a very large degree by burning fossil fuels, including coal and gas. Yet this government, entirely predictably, is refusing to heed the requests of our Pacific island friends and is instead doing the behest of the big coal and gas corporations in this country. What a surprise! It's because the big coal and gas corporations in this country are massive political donors to the Australian Labor Party. The big coal and gas companies in this country are repositories for tired, old Labor senators and members of the other place and their senior staffers. They roll out of this building into cushy jobs on the boards and into senior executive positions of coal, oil and gas companies—big fossil fuel companies—and the PR companies that advise them. There are a litany of former Labor and, for that matter, Liberal senators and MPs who are now comfortably entrenched and making massive profits out of being involved with fossil fuels. The patronage here and the revolving door out of this parliament into corporate boardrooms are obscene, corrupt and need to end. The people paying for it are the Australians who lose their lives in bushfires. The people paying for it are the Australians who lose their lives in floods. The people paying for it are our Pacific island neighbours, who this government calls friends. They are watching their countries disappear underwater. It's a disgrace and it is massive hypocrisy. It's obvious to anyone who wants to see it the prioritisation of the interests of fossil fuel companies over the interests of people that this government calls our friends and neighbours in the Pacific. I say to Senator Wong, Senator Watt, the rest of this government and everyone in the opposition—and they are not without culpability here too, because big fossil fuel companies have their hooks into the opposition just as deeply as they have in the Labor government—until you stop approving new coal and gas mines, you should stop pretending our Pacific island neighbours are actually our friends, because you're not treating them as true friends would treat them. You are treating them with contempt. You are treating them with arrogance. You are dismissive of their extremely valid, real-life concerns about losing their homes—the places their ancestors grew up in, were born in, lived in and died in. They are watching those homes disappear and you are turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to their pleas for help. You have to be better than this and you must be better than this. Until you're better than this, stop pretending that you really care for their futures. 11:57 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I advise that the government will be supporting these amendments of Senator David Pocock. Question agreed to. 11:59 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania by leave—I, and also on behalf of Senator Steele-John, move amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1891 together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table), omit the table, substitute: (2) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 11), at the end of the clause, add: Note: The provisions of the Migration Regulations 1994 amended or inserted by this Act, and any other provisions of those regulations, may be amended or repealed by regulations made under section 504 of the Migration Act 1958 (see subsection 13(5) of the Legislation Act 2003). However, see item 9 of Schedule 2 to this Act which provides that certain legislative instruments do not come into effect until they have been approved by a resolution of each House of the Parliament. (3) Page 7 (after line 31), at the end of the bill, add: Schedule 2 — Disability discrimination Part 1 — Amendment to the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 Disability Discrimination Act 1992 1 Section 52 Repeal the section. Part 2 — Amendments to the Migration Regulations 1994 Migration Regulations 1994 2 Subregulation 2.25A(1) Omit "4005(1)(c), 4007(1)(a), 4007(1)(b) or 4007(1)(c)", substitute "4007(1)(a) or 4007(1)(b)". 3 Paragraph 602.212(8)(d) of Schedule 2 Omit ", other than paragraph 4005(1)(c)". 4 Paragraph 4005(1)(c) of Schedule 4 Repeal the paragraph. 5 Subclauses 4005(2) and (3) of Schedule 4 Repeal the subclauses. 6 Paragraph 4007(1)(c) of Schedule 4 Repeal the paragraph. 7 Subclauses 4007(1A) to (2) of Schedule 4 Repeal the subclauses. Part 3 — Other provisions 8 Application of amendments (1) The amendment made by Part 1 of this Schedule applies in relation to a provision in the Migration Act 1958, or a provision in a legislative instrument made under that Act, that was made before, on or after the commencement of this Schedule. (2) The amendments made by Parts 1 and 2 of this Schedule apply in relation to a visa application under the Migration Act 1958: (a) made, but not finally determined, before the commencement of this Schedule; or (b) made on or after that commencement. (3) The amendments made by Parts 1 and 2 of this Schedule apply in relation to any visa in effect on or after the commencement of this Schedule, whether the visa was granted before, on or after that commencement. 9 Transitional provision (1) This item applies if: (a) a person who is a non-citizen was refused a visa, or held a visa that was cancelled, before the commencement of this Schedule; and (b) the refusal or cancellation was wholly or partly on the basis that the person failed to satisfy, or to continue to satisfy, the requirements of paragraph 4005(1)(c) or 4007(1)(c) of Schedule 4 to the Migration Regulations 1994 as in force before the commencement of this Schedule. (2) Despite section 48 of the Migration Act 1958, or any other provision of that Act or regulations made under that Act, the refusal or cancellation is to be disregarded in determining whether the person may: (a) apply for a visa of any class; or (b) have such an application made on the person's behalf. 10 Affirmative resolution (1) This item applies to regulations made under section 504 of the Migration Act 1958 that: (a) are made on or after the commencement of this Schedule; and (b) have the effect of amending or repealing, or otherwise altering the effect or operation of, the amendments of the Migration Regulations 1994 made by this Schedule. (2) The regulations do not come into effect until they have been approved by a resolution of each House of the Parliament. These amendments will remove the ableism entrenched in Australia's migration system by repealing section 52 of the Disability Discrimination Act, along with public interest criteria and related provisions in schedule 4 of the Migration Regulations 1994. These are the elements in the statutes that allow for the ableism in Australia's migration system that I've spoken about repeatedly in this place, and particularly over the last two or three days. I make note that recommendation 4.31 of the recently published report by the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability called for a review of section 52 of the DDA, with a view to inform reforms that would eliminate or minimise discrimination in our migration system and reflect our international human rights obligations. I note that this was also a recommendation of the 2010 Enabling Australia: inquiry into the migration treatment of disability report by the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, from an inquiry which was chaired by then Labor MP the Hon. Michael Danby, and it has been a recommendation of countless folks with disability, groups, NGOs and other stakeholders in the civil society over many years. The Welcoming Disability campaign, which is supported by over 100 disability and human rights organisations and experts, has said it is deeply concerned that successive federal governments have failed to act on many of the Enabling Australia report's fundamental recommendations and have called on Labor to end this government discrimination by removing the ableism in Australia's migration system. 12:01 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The government won't be supporting these amendments. As Senator McKim advised in an earlier contribution, he has reached agreement with Minister Giles about a review process for a number of the issues that he has raised. We think the appropriate course of action is for that review to be conducted rather than taking the step of amending the legislation at this point in time. 12:02 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland The opposition will not be supporting these amendments. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 241710 The question is that amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1891 be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells being rung— Senator McKim JKM I seek leave to cancel this division. Leave granted. Question negatived. Senator McKim JKM I would ask that the Greens position of supporting these amendments be recorded in the Hansard. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: That will be recorded in the Hansard. I alert the chamber that the amendments were negatived. 12:05 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2124 together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table), omit the table, substitute: (2) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 11), at the end of the clause, add: Note: The provisions of the Migration Regulations 1994 amended or inserted by this Act, and any other provisions of those regulations, may be amended or repealed by regulations made under section 504 of the Migration Act 1958 (see subsection 13(5) of the Legislation Act 2003). However, see item 5 of Schedule 3 to this Act which provides that certain legislative instruments do not come into effect until they have been approved by a resolution of each House of the Parliament. (3) Page 7 (after line 31), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 3 — Health waivers for children Part 1 — Amendments to the Migration Regulations 1994 Migration Regulations 1994 1 At the end of clause 4005 of Schedule 4 Add: (4) The Minister must waive the requirements of paragraph (1)(c) for the grant of the visa if the applicant is a child born in Australia to a temporary visa holder. (5) The Minister must waive the requirements of paragraph (1)(c) for the grant of the visa if both of the following apply: (a) the applicant is a temporary visa holder; and (b) the applicant has a child born in Australia who fails to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (1)(c). 2 At the end of clause 4007 of Schedule 4 Add: (3) Despite subclause (2), the Minister must waive the requirements of paragraph (1)(c) for the grant of the visa if the applicant is a child born in Australia to a temporary visa holder. (4) Despite subclause (2), the Minister must waive the requirements of paragraph (1)(c) for the grant of the visa if both of the following apply: (a) the applicant is a temporary visa holder; and (b) the applicant has a child born in Australia who fails to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (1)(c). Part 2 — Other provisions 3 Application of amendments (1) The amendments made by Part 1 of this Schedule apply in relation to a visa application under the Migration Act 1958: (a) made, but not finally determined, before the commencement of this Schedule; or (b) made on or after that commencement. 4 Transitional provision (1) This item applies if: (a) a person who is a non-citizen was refused a visa, or held a visa that was cancelled, before the commencement of this Schedule; and (b) the refusal or cancellation was wholly or partly on the basis that the person failed to satisfy, or to continue to satisfy, the requirements of paragraph 4005(1)(c) or 4007(1)(c) of Schedule 4 to the Migration Regulations 1994 as in force before the commencement of this Schedule. (2) Despite section 48 of the Migration Act 1958, or any other provision of that Act or regulations made under that Act, the refusal or cancellation is to be disregarded in determining whether the person may: (a) apply for a visa of any class; or (b) have such an application made on the person's behalf. 5 Affirmative resolution (1) This item applies to regulations made under section 504 of the Migration Act 1958 that: (a) are made on or after the commencement of this Schedule; and (b) have the effect of amending or repealing, or otherwise altering the effect or operation of, the amendments of the Migration Regulations 1994 made by this Schedule. (2) The regulations do not come into effect until they have been approved by a resolution of each House of the Parliament. I will speak extremely briefly to these amendments. If these amendments are successful, it would mean that there would be automatic waivers for children who are born in Australia to parents who are temporary residents in Australia. That would mean that the disgraceful practice of deporting disabled children that are born in Australia to holders of temporary visas would no longer occur. As I have said repeatedly during this debate, it is archaic, it is barbaric, it is unfair, it is discriminatory and it is ablest and it needs to end—and it needs to end now. 12:06 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The government will also be opposing these amendments, for similar reasons. As I explained previously, the issue of children will also be subject to this review that Minister Giles has agreed to. We think that should occur before any further amendments are considered. 12:07 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland The opposition will be opposing these amendments. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2124 standing in the name of Senator McKim be agreed to. Question negatived. Senator McKim JKM I make the same request that our support for these amendments be entered into the Hansard. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: It will be entered into the Hansard. I alert honourable senators that the amendments were negatived. Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023, as amended, agreed to; Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023 agreed to. Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 reported with amendments; Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023 reported without amendments; report adopted. Third Reading 29 12:09 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That these bills be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bills read a third time. Family Law Amendment Bill 2023, Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023 29

Family Law Amendment Bill 2023

Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023

In Committee 29 12:10 The CHAIR 287062 Senator Cash, we have five minutes, just to let you know. 12:10 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Chair, thank you for actually pointing that out, because the disappointing thing about the next five minutes is: this may well be the last five minutes in which we, the Australian Senate, have an opportunity to properly scrutinise, I believe, one of the most significant pieces of legislation to come before this Senate. And why do I say that? Because there is, on the Notice Paper, and the government will move, later today, a motion that will gag debate as of this evening. All questions will be put, with no further scrutiny of this bill: no ability to actually scrutinise in detail the very considered and sensible amendments that the opposition is putting forward—again, in relation to one of the most important bills to come before the Australian Senate. As I said this morning in relation to another debate, why do we say this is one of the most important bills? Because Labor seems to conveniently forget that family law touches almost every Australian, whether it is you, personally, going through the family law system, or whether it is a member of your family or a friend going through the family law system. This is, without a doubt, one of the most distressful periods in a person's life. And God forbid you are one of those people that cannot settle your family law issues outside of the court and you actually need to get into the family court system! This bill, unfortunately, is a flawed bill, and any of the consequences—in particular, in relation to any further distress or any further delay—that families around Australian experience as a consequence of this bill going through in the form that is before us will be squarely on the head of the Attorney-General of Australia. As I may not have an opportunity to talk to our amendments this afternoon, I have circulated, on behalf of the opposition, nine separate amendments to this bill. We have done a lot of work on this bill. Why? Because we, as the opposition, want to see the family law system in Australia function in the best interests of those who have to go through it. That is why, when we were in government and I was the Attorney-General of Australia, we combined the two courts—we brought them together. On any analysis, the steps that we took in relation to combining the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia have made them better—not for us here in this chamber, but for the Australian families who are going through the system. We also brought forward the first tranche of amendments to the Family Law Act. They were amendments that we agreed, as a Senate, were important amendments. We were able to agree on them. And they have again made a good difference to the family law system in Australia. But, sadly, this bill, I have grave fears, will not make a positive difference. In fact, because of the way the bill is drafted, I fear for Australian families that, under the Albanese Labor government and under Mark Dreyfus, as the Attorney-General of Australia, there will be unintended consequences in relation to the impacts of this bill. In particular, our second amendment adopted the Australian Law Reform Commission's recommended drafting on the best way to address misunderstandings on the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. It accepted the evidence that the presumption as currently drafted can often be confused with equal time, but we agreed with the Australian Law Reform Commission. What has Mr Dreyfus done without any justification at all? He has completely bypassed what the Australian Law Reform Commission said, and, instead of redrafting, he has thrown out the presumption altogether. As I said, it's a great disappointment: so much for transparency, so much for scrutiny. Progress reported. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 30 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Israel 30 12:15 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I rise today to speak in strong support of the motion relating to the Hamas attack on Israel that was moved by Minister Wong. I had intended to give this speech last night when the motion was being formally debated, but I was absent from parliament and privileged instead to be in Sydney, as a representative of the government, welcoming those Australians home who had been in Israel at the time of the Hamas attack. I want to thank Senator Polley for giving me the opportunity to make this timely contribution today. Let me tell you, my fellow Senators, that the sights of families being reunited after one of the most horrifying periods imaginable will remain imprinted on my consciousness forever. I want to commend Premier Minns and the public servants who made those 222 returning Australians so welcome. I also want to commend the efforts of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, who have already enabled so many Australians to return home. I acknowledge their ongoing efforts, in particular to repatriate the Australians who remain trapped in Gaza and who are at such immediate risk. Distance is not an adequate measure of the closeness of this conflict to our nation. Many Australians have been directly affected because they were, or continue to be, within the region directly experiencing the fear and violence which define this conflict, because they are friends and family of those overseas who have tragically lost their lives, been taken hostage or remain in the region living in fear. And, having spoken to some who are the relatives of hostages, I want to convey some words which were spoken to me in the last 24 hours: 'We grew up educated for peace. We are still donating to our friends in Gaza. We have nothing against Palestine, but we have a great deal against Hamas.' I speak to Australians because we're frightened of the grotesque displays of anti-Semitism that we've witnessed here in Australia and the Islamophobia and violence against Palestinians we've witnessed in other Western nations. I speak simply because we are human, and the witnessing of another human's suffering, their pain and their loss, touches our hearts. I strongly commend Minister Wong; the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence; and the Prime Minister for their unwavering leadership throughout the past days. Our leaders' swift condemnation of Hamas's horrific attacks on Israel, their unwavering support of the Israeli state and its right to defend itself, and the empathy and humanity they have demonstrated in charting our nation's course through this time have made me deeply proud to be a member of this government. And I note the multipartisan joint statement on Israel-Hamas now carried in both the Senate and the House. In a conflict which continues to be played by gross misinformation and the intentional objective of stoking confusion, hatred and false divisions, there are few things which can be stated with absolute certainty: Israel has a right to exist and a right to defend itself. All people deserve to live safe from fear and violence. The loss of every innocent life is a tragedy. Hamas is a terrorist organisation, responsible for horrific, illegal and unjust violence against Israeli civilians. It's an oppressor of the Palestinian people. Hamas's attack on Israel involved the brutal murder of over a thousand Israelis—men, women and children—who were taken by surprise and had their lives viciously and ruthlessly cut short. I am personally sickened by attempts to justify that violence and the intentional act of seeking out and slaughtering civilians. In our attempts to navigate this conflict, some people have sought to abstract the violence that real people are experiencing. There are people who seek to politicise this issue to a point beyond recognition, to a point where the death, fear and psychological pain experienced by real people are forgotten. Abstracted discussions of terror, war and politics do not account for the horror of these experiences on an individual level and the way that they are experienced by real human beings—the shock and fear of hearing gunshots or bombs dropping just outside the door; the thoughts in a person's mind as they run through a field, watching their friends fall around them; the pain a person feels watching their loved ones die violently in front of their very eyes, knowing only that they cannot stop it and that they may very well be next. The experience of individuals, their fear, the way they grieve, the real tears which have been shed and the blood which has been spilled—these are not political concepts. They are tangible realities. It's easier for us to ignore them and to speak in abstraction and obfuscation. That is the exact reason we must acknowledge the realities—because it is difficult. This moment also demands acknowledgement that Hamas is distinct from the Palestinian people. More than half the population of Gaza are people under the age of 18. They are children. I support with all my being the efforts currently underway to establish humanitarian access and aid to those who are in need, and I pray for the protection of all innocent Palestinian and Israeli lives. I certainly pray for the protection of those who are now hostages under the watch of Hamas. I condemn it, and I call for the release of the hostages, along with every other decent person walking the planet. Palestinians deserve access to food, water, medication and safety. I echo Minister Wong's determined and consistent call for the establishment of humanitarian access and safe passage for civilians. We must continue despite what has gone on already and what will come in the days ahead. We must continue to emphasise the protection of civilian lives and the observance of humanitarian law. The viewing of people in categories is diminishing to all. In times such as this, the challenge is always to remind oneself of the uniqueness of each soul and to elevate our fundamental understanding of suffering and loss. In this darkness, we are in search of the light in our hearts. If we fail to recognise the experience of individual people and no longer emphasise the base humanity inherent in their experiences, we risk the loss of our own humanity. Viktor Frankl, a Jewish Austrian psychiatrist who survived Auschwitz, categorically documented his experience through the lens of psychiatry. He explained clinically how such immeasurable suffering and despair are reflected in the daily mind of a prisoner. Frankl tells of a mechanised evil that transported him to Auschwitz from Vienna. Upon leaving the cattle car, he was separated from the vast majority—some 90 per cent—of those he was with, who were immediately murdered. Viktor was forced into a room with others. They were given a strict two minutes to strip down to only their shoes and belts. In their nakedness they were lined up, whipped by SS guards and marched into a shower, their only relief coming from noticing real water coming out of the faucet. The Holocaust demonstrated to the world how evil humanity can be given the right conditions. Day after day mass murders were executed with an efficiency and absence of unease made possible only by the dehumanisation of a whole category of human beings. On reflecting on his survival of one of the worst atrocities humanity has ever inflicted on itself, Viktor Frankl said: Our generation is realistic, for we have come to know man as he really is. After all, man is that being who invented the gas chambers of Auschwitz; however, he is also that being who entered those gas chambers upright, with the Lord's Prayer or the Shema Yisrael on his lips. Viktor was right. At best, humanity is capable of love, compassion and charity; at worst, humanity is cruel, sadistic and brutal. When we force people into faceless categories, when we cease to recognise our common humanity, we risk the worst that we are capable of. When we cannot feel empathy for any Palestinian or Israeli mother putting her child to bed at night, surrounded by explosions, unsure of whether they will make it through the night, we have lost our humanity. It is reasonably well-known that I have a set of rosary beads and a copy of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. The Holocaust was born of the greatest horrors known to man. Let us not forget the lessons. \ Economy 32 12:25 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia Before I pivot to the content of my speech, I want to acknowledge the contribution from Senator O'Neill and thank her for it. It was a powerful delivery and, Senator O'Neill, I want to associate myself with the comments you have made. Thank you very much indeed. I want to pivot to another discussion on productivity. Today, one thing that has become crystal-clear during the ongoing industrial relations, education and employment inquiry is that this government just does not have a plan to address the rampant inflation or to improve the nation's productivity. So is it any wonder that yesterday the RBA gave a very stark warning that further interest rate rises might be on the cards, saying it now has 'significant concerns' about the outlook for inflation? This is just more bad news for Australian families who, under the watch of this government, are already enduring the worst cost-of-living crisis in a generation. Households and household budgets are being squeezed to the absolute maximum, with high petrol prices, high energy prices, high grocery prices and rental prices hitting fresh records. With the RBA trying to tame rampant inflation using the blunt instrument of increasing interest rates, the bank needs the government to do its part by addressing fiscal spending. Certainly, trying to swing power back to the trade unions and increase their influence in the workplace won't do anything to encourage workplace harmony or productivity, nor will tampering with the industrial relations framework or trying to remove casuals from the workforce. The government's IR bill is a solution looking for a problem, like draining the ocean trying to catch one fish. Instead of trying to grow trade union membership, this government should be trying to encourage productivity growth across the economy through dynamic policy and regulatory reform. However, this government is in total flux about what to do about productivity. The Treasurer recently learned it is a problem and started mentioning the 'p' word, and we finally heard the Treasurer start to talk about productivity. Even the Prime Minister has discovered that word in his dictionary. The release of the latest Intergenerational report in August further highlighted the challenges ahead for productivity. It mentioned productivity 370 times. This report shows why lifting productivity levels needs to be urgently addressed. I commend that report and I encourage people to have a look at it. However, for this government, labour productivity is the elephant in the room. The government seems intent on ignoring it and, worse, even isolating it. Doing so will jeopardise Australia's future prosperity, yet the government thinks that only seeing growth in nominal wages alone will ensure people's real prosperity will increase. The peril in that thinking will mean continued high labour costs, and when separated from productivity gains that will only ensure the path of sticky inflation persists. Sticky inflation means Australian families' real family incomes will continue to be silently eroded away. As the former Reserve Bank governor, Dr Philip Lowe, observed in his July speech, when it comes to addressing labour productivity there has to be a lot of good and sensible ideas about how this can be achieved. He said: It's not about knowing what to do, it's a political one. And the political challenge is to get these good ideas that are already out there, through our political systems. One of these 'good ideas' is the Productivity Commission. The government doesn't like us talking about the Productivity Commission, let alone the five-year productivity inquiry it released earlier this year, which the Treasurer has so far completely ignored. This report has become like the classic line from the television show Fawlty Towers, 'Don't mention the war.' Like Basil Fawlty running around his hotel telling people not to mention the war to his German guests, the Treasurer is running around saying, 'Don't talk about the Productivity Commission.' You don't hear anything from him. The five-year productivity report developed a blueprint on how, as a country, we can responsibly grow labour productivity. It is important we boost labour productivity to ensure that national prosperity is shared by future generations and that people's real wages are not gobbled up by continued rampant inflation. One area the commission's report highlighted was investing in our future skills needs. This is an issue that's particularly important to the services sector and is something that I'm very passionate about. It's increasingly coming to overshadow our economy. As the Productivity Commission noted: An increasing proportion of jobs require non-routine skills, which typically demand workers with higher levels of education or training … As jobs and tasks change more rapidly, it will become increasingly important that education provides adaptable general skills. It said: In addition the services sector now predominates, accounting for 90% of workers, up from 50% in 1900—affecting the skills required in the economy. While imperative, the emphasis alone shouldn't just be on skilling the nation. Flooding the job market with a highly skilled and able workforce—in and of itself—doesn't address the long-term needs of the nation or, indeed, lift its productivity. That will only lead to further pressures on the labour unit costs. Instead, it must zero in on ensuring the skills and training are tailored to the jobs in demand and the jobs of tomorrow and the jobs that will revitalise and grow our productivity. The Australian Industry Group reported in its Skills and Workforce Development Survey that 90 per cent of businesses expected to be affected by staffing shortages in 2023, 36 per cent reported that skills shortages will inhibit their business growth and 26 per cent said that total labour shortages—both skilled and non-skilled—will inhibit growth. Critically, 74 per cent of businesses reported they are affected by low literacy and numeracy skills. Increasing the skilled migration intake will only solve part of the problem. Training new and existing staff will also be a key formula to addressing the skills shortages. So, too, will improving the teaching and education framework that supports it. Simply creating new TAFE places and more fee-free TAFE placements does not fix the problem. Consideration must be given to improved outcomes and pay that is based on results not just placements. Yet that's what we're seeing this government do with its fee-free TAFE places. In fact, we're seeing a lot of TAFE places going to leisure type training courses rather than career type training courses—for example, people doing mountain biking courses because they want to improve their mountain biking skills. And the government is paying for that. While what we have been pulling out of the ground has contributed largely to our past and present prosperity and we have become very good at doing that, human capital is what will drive the prosperity of tomorrow. Just as we've been blessed with incredible mineral wealth, this country is also abundantly rich with human capital. Therefore, to foster future prosperity we must make sure that the education, skills and training framework is match fit and flexible to be able to adapt and respond to those evolving needs. Releasing these opportunities will pivot our nation to deliver the success that we need over the next decade and beyond. Future generations are relying on us to get this right. As former president Ronald Reagan once said: There are no constraints on the human mind, no walls around the human spirit, no barriers to our progress except those we ourselves erect. The government needs to focus on this critical issue. To address productivity, we must see an improvement in the skills that this nation is able to deliver so that, although we are lagging now, we can continue as we have for a long time to be competitive internationally and to address the opportunities before us. Oil and Gas Exploration 33 12:35 Senator 195565 Tasmania WHISH-WILSON () (): I want to highlight in the Australian Senate today that seismic testing corporations TGS and Schlumberger are jointly proposing the biggest ever 3D seismic blasting survey on record globally off the west coast of Tasmania and the south-west coast of Victoria. I don't think I need to highlight to senators the irony of embarking on one of the biggest fossil fuel exploration projects in our nation's history at a time of climate emergency, when all the warning signs are there. We have record low sea ice in the Australian Antarctic. Record temperatures are being set all around the world, including in our own nation. There are forecasts for a record super El Nino event in Australia this year. We've had devastating back-to-back bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef. There's the march of invasive species along our eastern seaboard and the loss of our giant kelp forests. I could spend more than 10 minutes just listing the siren calls for action. Yet most Australians aren't aware that, off our southern coast, fossil fuel companies are still running rampant because this government and the previous government have given them the green light to do so. In their search to facilitate new oil and gas fields to exploit, TGS and Schlumberger are eyeing off 55,000 square kilometres of ocean to blast between Tasmania and Victoria in the Otway Basin. The project's mammoth operational area is 38 kilometres from land at the closest point and will see seismic vessels tow up to 14 seismic streamers eight to 10 kilometres in length, equipped with high-powered air guns designed to penetrate the earth's crust from the surface of the ocean, including oceans that are over a kilometre deep. These air guns generate one of the loudest noises produced by human beings and would blast the ocean floor every 10 to 15 seconds, 24 hours a day, seven days a week for up to 400 days. I initiated and chaired a Senate inquiry—the world's first inquiry into seismic testing—a number of years ago. We heard that these blasts in Bass Strait and the Southern Ocean can be detected by our seismic equipment in Antarctica. We heard anecdotal evidence from fishing communities on the west coast of Tasmania about their windowsills shaking while this blast was occurring of the coast. Yet we are doing it in two marine parks with well-established migration routes for whales, close to significant commercial fishing fields. It's insanity. Unsurprisingly, the Senate inquiry also found that seismic blasting is serious and potentially fatal for marine life. Yet this proposal covers two Commonwealth marine parks and biologically important areas for EPBC listed species, including the pygmy blue whale and southern right whale. The environmental plan for this destructive proposal was submitted to the government's offshore energy regulator, NOPSEMA, for the 30-day public comment period in September last year, where it received over 30,000 public comment submissions, with a vast majority opposing these destructive plans. This is one of the largest public comment responses ever to a seismic blasting proposal and it signals the enormous shift we are seeing in the public's response to the continuation of these destructive projects. They are exploring for the exact product that, when found and burnt, also kills our oceans. TGS and Schlumberger have stated that they are now going to resubmit their environmental plan to NOPSEMA after looking at the public comments. But get this—the revised environmental plan will not be made available for public comment. This has enraged many who consider the flaws in the original environmental plan so significant that the revised environmental plan had to be made. As I and my colleagues have often said in this place, the best antidote to climate despair is climate action. I want to give a shout-out to a legend today—Annie Ford, a marine scientist. She spent much of her career working for companies involved in seismic surveying before she left the industry because of their damaging practices. Because of her personal experience as a scientist she is now working with the Surfrider Foundation—an NGO I used to be involved with prior to entering politics—in its fight to advocate against this destructive proposal in the Bass Strait. She is riding her bike a gruelling 4,000 kilometres across the eastern seaboard of Australia. In fact, I believe she is due to depart Tasmania for Victoria any day now, having ridden from Hobart. She will be doing this for the next two months, looking to spark conversations along her journey alongside the Surfrider Foundation's tour of its new film Southern Blast, which highlights the beauty and uniqueness of the Southern Ocean and our Great Southern Reef and why its precious marine life, its communities and its fishing industries shouldn't be put at risk by fossil fuel corporations. Many of these big corporations—and you can take your pick; Woodside Petroleum is endeavouring to undertake another massive seismic survey in whale migratory paths off the north-west shelf of WA—buy their hefty political power in this place with donations. They have also been conducting seismic testing for oil and gas for the last 50 years and have had respective governments eating out of the palms of their hands. Successive governments have sat by for so long while big oil and gas companies have run rampant in our oceans, which is why in 2020 I moved to have a Senate inquiry into seismic testing. It's interesting that a trillion dollar industry around the world hasn't funded any research into the seismic impacts on commercial fishing species. Think about that. Companies that make billions of dollars didn't want anybody to know about the impacts of this activity. That research is slowly occurring. Every time we have a new research project and find out more we are more concerned about the impact of this activity. This inquiry was the first of its kind. I was very pleased with the amount of scrutiny that parliament applied to this industry. We found that the regulatory framework doesn't provide sufficient environmental or economic protection from the impacts of seismic testing and gives too much latitude to a regulator who is perceived to be too close to the petroleum industry. NOPSEMA may be independent of government with the way it's set up, but I don't believe from the evidence we heard in the Senate inquiry that it is independent of industry. The tide is now turning. As Australians go to film nights like the Surfrider Foundation are putting on they are understanding that their surrounding oceans are under siege. This is incredibly so at a time of climate crisis. They are unnecessarily being exploited by reckless and rapacious fossil fuel corporations. In this country we are already overshooting our climate targets and, if we go out exploring for new fossil fuel projects, we have no way back to meet these climate targets. The International Energy Agency tells us we need to leave unexploited fossil fuel deposits in the ground if we are going to meet our Paris commitments. We need to rapidly transition to renewable energy. I would like to finish by saying that the Greens still have a private senator's bill before this chamber to ban all new offshore oil and gas exploration. Soon it will be time for politicians to listen to their communities and back in this bill. We also need to stop the annual handout of oceans to companies like TGS and Schlumberger. Up to 80,000 square kilometres was handed out in the last ocean acreage under the previous government. It's got to stop. We need to listen to communities, we need to take climate action seriously and we need to protect our oceans. Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 34

Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023

12:45 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales The Albanese Labor government is tackling cost-of-living pressures and fighting to deliver a fairer system for hardworking Australians and good businesses. This is in stark contrast to those opposite, who, over a decade in government, did nothing while workers' wages went backwards. Attacking the hardworking folks in this country, the mums and dads trying to make ends meet, is simply in their DNA. Our government's 'closing the loopholes' bill closes the loopholes that some employers have used to drive down wages and strip away conditions. Our Education and Employment Legislation Committee has been travelling across the country to hear from key stakeholders, businesses, employee groups, unions and, importantly, workers themselves. From Melbourne to Perth and Sydney to Launceston, the message we're hearing is loud and clear: the current system isn't working. It doesn't protect workers' pay and conditions. It doesn't protect good businesses who are being undercut by bad businesses. Unions and workers have told us people who are risking their lives making deliveries or undertaking unsafe work can't make ends meet. We've heard about workers being ripped off by bad employers. We've heard about unfair labour practices where Qantas could have four flight crew operating the same flight and doing the same job but being paid vastly different rates of pay. There are supervisors on those same flights who are earning less than the people they're supervising because they're employed by a labour hire company. In typical fashion, we've got big business fighting tooth and nail against those urgently required reforms to close the loopholes. I'm sure we've all seen the senseless and misleading ads on the TV and the radio. This goes to this very clear point: big business, particularly the Minerals Council, will say and do anything without fact or favour to stop workers and good businesses getting a fair go. They simply want to protect their own interests—not the community, not the workforce, not the national interest, but their interests. In the case of the minerals industry, they want to protect the bonuses of their top-floor executives while workers struggle to put food on the table. And, like usual, they've got their mates in the Liberals and the Nationals fighting for their interests against the workers of this country, against the community, against the national interest. Closing the loopholes deals with the national interest and ticks the national interest test. Those opposite have always been for the top end of town; I learned that at a young age. In my many years on this earth, for all the years that that proposition has been around—it has been around for a damn long time. In fact, their contempt for working people has got even worse over time. One of the key elements of the bill is closing the Qantas labour hire loophole championed by Alan Joyce, which has now infected other big industries like mining. Big companies like BHP are using the labour hire loophole to outsource much of their mining workforce to labour hire companies and subsidiaries. These outsourced workers earn significantly less than their directly employed colleagues and often don't receive basic rights like annual leave and secure employment. We heard from the Minerals Council CEO, Tania Constable. Ms Constable turned up to the committee and told a hearing in Sydney: 'The median wages for our mining employees paid by labour hire are higher. Labour hire firms pay approximately $300 more, or 13 per cent higher, than the median weekly earnings of direct mining employees.' If that's the case, why is the Minerals Council running around saying that reforms will cost the mining sector billions, a line parroted by those opposite? Ms Constable can't have it both ways. Either workers are better off already or this legislation won't impact their workforce. In fact, workers will be worse off under the labour hire employee arrangements that she and her members enter into. They are worse off. A study commissioned by the ACTU earlier this year found that an average labour hire employee is paid $4,700 a year less than their directly employed colleagues. The study also found that more than 80 per cent of workers on a labour hire contract work full-time jobs but don't have full-time employment. Their employment is insecure and unreliable. The committee has already heard from businesses and business groups who claim that their labour hire employees are paid more, yet they're fighting against a bill that, if you took them at their word, wouldn't impact their business at all; it wouldn't cost them a cent. Whether it's 'same job, same pay' or whether it's 'closing the loopholes', those instruments give better and fairer conditions. The committee has also heard from unions and workers about the burden of having insecure labour hire contract work and the inability to take out a home loan or plan for the future. A worker told a hearing in Perth that he and many of his colleagues have lost employment over the Christmas break only to be rehired by the same company, on another contract, to do the same job after Christmas. This is what those opposite are supporting. When there's work to be done and there are decent wages to be paid, they're not on the side of workers. Hardworking Australians are doing their best to provide for their families without a fair income and without a hope for the future. It is shameful. Another key element of this bill is regulating the gig economy and ensuring workers have minimum rights and decent working conditions. The committee has heard from delivery workers who are working 14-hour days just to make ends meet and earning as little as $6 an hour, with no workers comp and no leave entitlements. We've heard time and time again that that's the contract they entered into. Is that the system we want for our children in the future of this country? Many good employers at the inquiry said no. Many good employers from a wide variety of industries, including gig companies and people providing labour similar to labour hire through various electronic means, have said they don't want that system. They want a better system for all Australians. They want a fairer system. Let entrepreneurial skill win the day and the battle. Don't let conditions, wages, rights, security and a future for our kids be the losers. The uberisation of the care sector has seen companies like Mable push workers to their limits and pay below the minimum wage. When you factor in platform fees, annual leave, sick leave, workers compensation and travel costs, including fuel, this leaves workers far worse off when they're on contract work and working below the minimum wage. In response to workers' concerns, Mable company director Kate Carnell said, 'If Mable workers aren't earning enough, maybe small business isn't for them.' Can you believe it? She's saying that small business isn't for them if they can't earn enough. If I extend that logic to those on $6 an hour then it raises some serious questions. It's a shameful dismissal of genuine concerns from the Mable workforce, who are saying they are overworked, often in unsafe conditions, and shamefully underpaid. But for those opposite all of that is acceptable. They don't have concerns about the unsafe and unfair practices of companies like DoorDash and Mable. Some people like casual work or gig work or labour hire, and that's fine; this bill doesn't interfere with that. But people deserve rights. If we're going to give people rights, we need to give them the right to take them before a commission—and many good employers support that. Of course, those opposite don't care about working Australians. They care only about the puppetmasters at the Minerals Council of Australia and the Business Council. They care about big business, big profits and big return for those executives. The Liberals and the Nationals, as we know, are always for low pay, but we'll continue to be on the side of supporting workers, creating a better system and protecting good big businesses who shouldn't be undercut by bad employers. Israel 36 12:54 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I rise to again strongly support the motion, passed in the Senate this morning, on the Hamas attacks on Israel. I was incredibly proud to support this motion, and I join coalition colleagues who have condemned the unprovoked and abhorrent attacks by militant Hamas. I also unequivocally support Israel's right to self-determination, its right to exist and its right to protect its own citizens, which is enshrined in international law. The removal of the threat of Hamas is essential. Australia, alongside like-minded nations, must support efforts by Israel to defend itself and its people against future atrocious attacks. I think one of the principles that unite us all in here is that we must support others that we hope and expect would support us in similar circumstances. If this unimaginable atrocity happened to us, we would expect and hope that our like-minded allies and friends would support us as well. Hamas has brought Israel's response upon itself, and in doing so it has tragically exposed to danger the very people, the Palestinian people, it cruelly claims to stand for. Hamas, and Hamas only, are responsible for the current loss of Israeli, Palestinian and many other lives. I don't envy the moral dilemma of the Israeli government, and certainly it's not one that any of us would envy. No-one ever wants to see lives lost. All human life deserves care and support, including Palestinians, and that is why the coalition supports properly targeted humanitarian assistance. However, that said, let us not be led into false equivalences, as some in this chamber and elsewhere have sought to do. In its attack, Hamas acted with surprise and with intent to brutally kill innocent civilians. They took hostages—men, women, children, babies. Israel, in contrast, provided public warnings to minimise civilian losses. It is targeting the weapons it uses, its capabilities, to the perpetrators of terrorist attacks. Last week in Perth I had the privilege of attending a solidarity with Israel event held by the Jewish community of Western Australia at the Perth Hebrew Congregation in Menora. There, over 1,000 Western Australians gathered in support of Israel and its people, singing 'Oseh Shalom', a prayer for peace. The grief and sadness in the room, the impact of these horrific attacks, was palpable. There are so many people in Western Australia, in Perth in particular, with relatives and friends who have been caught up in these attacks. I couldn't help but reflect, while sitting there, listening and sharing in the experience, that sometimes in the face of great evil there are simply no words to adequately convey how you feel. That was certainly one of those moments, but I hope that being there with many of my Western Australian Liberal colleagues spoke much louder than words ever could. Eleven days ago, at 6.35 am Israel standard time, the first air raid sirens were activated in southern and central Israel in response to thousands of Hamas missiles. Rockets rained down on the people of south Israel, and the terror that was unleashed—a lot of us have seen the photos and footage—was the most inhumane attack on innocent civilians. It was designed to be brutal, designed to be deadly and designed to send a message. It was, quite simply, a bloody, brutal murder, a savage act that should have no place in our world today. What happened there, one of the worst examples of terrorism in the modern age, has certainly shaken the foundations of our shared values. The pain and the suffering of the Israeli people are reverberating and being shared around the world. I was very proud that the former coalition government officially recognised Hamas as a terrorist organisation, as have so many other nations. I'd like to take this opportunity to condemn all forms of terrorism, violence and horror and the use of fear, terror and death to achieve political and ideological goals. Having travelled to Israel many times, I know that the state of Israel is a robust parliamentary democracy, much like Australia. Australia stood with Ukraine when it was subjected to the barbarity of the Russian invasion, and today we also stand with Israel in its hours, days, months and years of need to come. Global support for Israel—for its right to exist, its right to self-defence and its fight against antisemitism—is crucial for us all to stand up in this place and support. Australia was proud to lead the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of antisemitism. Hamas's brutal attack has also led to the largest killing of Jews in a single day since the Holocaust in World War II. Such targeted slaughter—for that's what it was—should never lead to the scenes of jubilation that we have seen in our very own nation—in fact, in the heart of Sydney, at the Sydney Opera House. These disgraceful antisemitic acts on the steps of the Opera House stain our nation and deepen the stain for Australia's strong and proud Jewish community. There is no question—I've seen it myself many times—that Australia's relationship with Israel is underpinned by a vibrant Australian Jewish community. I've seen that in action many times in Western Australia. Through the motion that we passed in this place today, the Australian parliament has sent a very clear message to the world, especially to our Australian Jewish community, that we stand with you in your time of need and support you. But I have to say that there are sometimes occasions in this place when I feel great shame for what is said and what is done in this chamber. Fortunately, that does not happen very often. But I think the behaviour of the Greens and some of the teals in the other place is a stain on our nation. It was distressing to see members of the Greens wearing Palestinian keffiyehs in this building. In fact, they've been wearing them every day this week. The extremist rhetoric coming from the Greens and from some of the teals has no place in this nation. There can be no justification for anybody in this place, or in the other place, to support terrorism and to support the acts of terrorists and particularly these most barbaric attacks in Israel. There has been the largest loss of Jewish life since the Holocaust. I also find it abhorrent that the Greens and some teals in the other place are creating a false equivalence between Hamas's terrorist attacks and the legitimate right of Israel to defend itself and to defend its citizens. In conclusion, the Australian relationship with Israel has a long, very strong and very proud history. This month marks the 106th anniversary of the First World War Battle of Beersheba, in which Anzac forces played a decisive role, fighting alongside their Allied counterparts in that war. Australia was the first country to vote in favour of the 1947 UN partition resolution which led to the creation of the state of Israel as a sovereign state, with the right under international law, which all other nations enjoy, to defend itself. I was privileged to be in Be'er Sheva itself for the 98th anniversary of the famous mounted charge of the 4th Australian Light Horse Brigade for a very moving service to commemorate the 31 light horsemen killed and the 36 wounded in the charge. We do share a long and close history together, and Australia must continue to stand by Israel. (Time expired) Migration Legislation 37 13:05 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland A precedent-setting change to immigration policy has passed this chamber today. I'm using this time to raise this crucial matter because today an immigration amendment bill on a merit based system with a lottery on working visas was passed. The ballot that was put in place can be entered before jobs are secured. People don't have to show that they have a job to go in the ballot. It's ballot first and then: 'Let's see if you can get a secure job.' This is more than a profound departure from decades of immigration policy. Labor is deceitfully opening yet another back door for permanent residency for more people than this country is able to accommodate. The Albanese government may be a sideshow, but our immigration system shouldn't be run like a chook raffle or lucky dip. This also flies in the face of Australian community sentiment about immigration numbers. Our people overwhelmingly support much lower immigration levels but are completely ignored by this chamber. Australians are angry about Labor ignoring their views on immigration. They are screaming about it because Australian families are facing increasing mortgage payments, higher rents and homelessness thanks to the high demand for housing, driven by Labor's immigration policies. It will put more undue pressure on our health and education systems, our public infrastructure, our wage growth and our welfare system, let alone what it's going to do to nursing homes and hospitals. This legislation will first put working visa applicants in a lottery and only afterwards require them to demonstrate they are being sponsored into a job. This is the reverse of what should be in place. Even worse is that people from Pacific island nations will be given the opportunity to bring their families with them if their working visa application is accepted. Their families will be able to access benefits and student funding. There are a few serious problems with this approach. Most of these people come to Australia for seasonal agricultural work, and we have a visa for that. After the season is over there is no more work, so they go home and take their earnings with them. Allowing them to stay permanently means many of them will end up depending on our welfare system when the seasonal work dries up. It will also drain these island nations of skilled workers, hurting their economies. Did you think about that one? The Cook Islands have already signalled this problem with Labor's legislation, and I expect others may follow suit. Labor claims this is part of its broader engagement strategy for nations in the Pacific. I have to say something about some of these nations. Australia gives them a huge amount of foreign aid assistance after natural disasters and assistance to improve poor governance. We have even committed military and police forces in times of conflict and unrest. In exchange, these nations beat us up over Australia's one per cent of global human carbon dioxide emissions. The irony is they go to communist China for money for infrastructure and say nothing about that country's 30 per cent of global emissions. When China calls in this debt, they will again come to Australia, screaming for help, and I will say no. I will say, 'You made your bed and you can lie in it.' It was announced this week that China is going to reboot and reinvigorate its so-called Belt and Road Initiative, so we can look forward to more of this hypocrisy in Pacific diplomacy. This new policy is a scam. One Nation is the only party that stands with the majority of Australian people in demanding the substantial reduction in our immigration levels. It forms a critical element of our signature policy to end the housing and rental crisis, which continues to get worse under Prime Minister Albanese and the Labor-Greens coalition government. One Nation was the only party to oppose this migration bill today, because it hasn't been well thought out. We have working visas for people to come into this nation—once they've done the work they go back. But, in giving them a lottery to come here as permanents and then bring their families and in giving them access to our education—with HELP and HECS debts—what are we doing to our own people here? We can't afford this. We are in a housing and rental crisis. Our homes are in crisis, and there is still a back door to bring more people into this country to increase the immigration numbers in Australia. It's an absolute shame and a disgrace, and I hope that people vote— (Time expired) Tamar River 38 13:10 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise to speak on the new pipeline to improve the health of the Tamar estuary in northern Tasmania. On Monday 9 October, I was delighted to join TasWater, the Launceston City Council and the Tasmanian government—all three tiers of government working together—to announce an important work to improve the long-term health of the Tamar estuary. We know that over the decades we've had report after report after report, but, because of the Albanese Labor government, we have actually now started to do the work and take the steps necessary to improve the river. I am extremely pleased to report that we've reached a new milestone, with construction of a three-kilometre-long, one-metre-wide pipeline that will increase capacity to transfer sewage and storm water out of the river. This new pipeline will travel 40 metres under the riverbed of the Tamar estuary, connecting the recently upgraded Margaret Street Sewage Pump Station near Kings Park with the Ti Tree Bend Sewage Treatment Plant at Invermay. The pipeline will significantly reduce the frequency and volume of overflow events, improving the overall health of the estuary, with completion expected in late 2024. This means fewer bacteria and other microbes, and it will also lead to a great improvement in the river system. A cleaner estuary is good for the environment, good for our local community, good for tourists and exceptionally good for river users. Two drill rigs will be used for the project, to first drill a pilot hole from either side of the pipeline before both rigs ream the path for the new pipeline. This is pretty highly technical work that's being done in northern Tasmania. What we've also seen in northern Tasmania is that eight of our local Tasmanian contractors are playing key roles in delivering the next stage of the pipeline project: Gradco, Poly Welding Solutions, Clennett Hire, Paneltec, MJ Cook Agricultural Supplies, Pfeiffer Cranes, Tasmanian Tree Care and Tasman Geotechnics. These are eight companies in Tasmania that are going to benefit from this investment from the federal, state and local governments and from TasWater. The pipeline is funded under those three elements of government. There's also $140.7 million going in to the Tamar Estuary River Health Action Plan, of which the Albanese government is investing $49 million, the Tasmanian government $47.5 million, the City of Launceston $11 million and TasWater $33.2 million. This is another project which demonstrates that, when all three tiers of government work together, we can get good outcomes for our local communities. I was delighted to be able to be there to represent the Albanese government at this announcement, to see firsthand what is going to happen and to hear about the construction. I understand only too well the real benefits of cleaning up the river. It's been too long coming. What we've seen is story after story, over many years, and evidence of the sand on the banks of the Tamar River. When I was a child, it was crystal-clear water. You used to be able to swim in it. Well, it hasn't like that for quite a long time. This river has been like this for decades. It is now time to clean it up. It's an active waterway, and I hope that in the future more northern Tasmanians and tourists can feel more comfortable on the water. Recently I spoke of a keen female rower who rowed on the river with an open cut on her hand, and unfortunately it resulted in a very nasty infection. She needed antibiotics, was unable to use her hands for some days and was off the water for some months. As a government, we are committed to clean waterways so that more people can enjoy them for recreational use. The plan will always be to investigate, to do the research and then to take the action that is needed. This is a significant infrastructure project with over kilometres of pipeline to be laid. There are also 12 metres of individual pipeline sections, with an expected pipeline capacity— (Time expired). Israel 39 13:15 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise today in further acknowledgment of the people of Israel and what is occurring in the Middle East. We have seen today absolute destruction of a hospital in Gaza, with evidence now emerging that this was actually a misfired missile from Islamic Jihad. This is the worst kind of own goal anyone can ever imagine, but we do know that here is only one group responsible for this conflict, and that is Hamas. But we have seen today the Greens, true-to-form, and, over in the other place, the behaviour of the Teals, Sophie Scamps, the member for Mackellar, and Kylea Tink, the member for North Sydney, in their support for a motion that would have removed Israel's right to defend itself—absolutely appalling behaviour on all accounts. One of the things that we hear from the Greens and others with regard to Palestine is that it is all about peace, that they are a peace-loving people and they would love a peaceful solution. Having spent some time over in the Middle East, including in the office of the Prime Minister of Palestine, in Ramallah, and speaking to him about their 'pay-for-slay' policy, it is outside of the realm of comprehension that this is a group of people truly committed to a peace process. I made some mention of this last night in my contribution to the debate on the motion, but I want to go further today to ensure that people understand that there is no commitment to peace. There is a blatant anti-Semitism that runs through Palestinian communities that is endorsed and, in fact, encouraged and taught to the next generation of Palestinian children through the UNRWA schools. I have just picked some examples that I'd like to share. These are teachers in the West Bank employed by the UN, and these are just a sample of some of their social media posts. The first one is from Arwa al-Najjar, who lists herself as a teacher at UNRWA. On 12 June 2022, this teacher posted support for Palestinian teen terrorist Ahmed Mansara, calling for his release. This is a terrorist who, at the age of 13, with his teenage cousin, went on a stabbing rampage in the Jerusalem neighbourhood of Pisgat Zeev, seriously wounding a 12-year-old Israeli boy. The translation of part of her post included: 'His left hand presses down on his wounds and his right hand cures the wounds of the homeland'. This is a teacher in the West Bank endorsing a terrorist. Then we have Nizar Khalil Abu Shaheen, a teacher in the West Bank, who has been recorded as posting anti-Semitic material. In June 2021, this teacher shared and endorsed as words that should be read, an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory about wealthy Jews controlling the UAE and, in particular, forcing it to make peace with Israel for their own financial gain. The anti-Semitic post also quotes The international Jew, by notorious anti-Semite Henry Ford, which claimed 'the Jews prefer to lead the world from behind,' suggesting that the Jewish 'capitalists' prefer to control the UAE indirectly. Furthermore, the post conflates the Jews with the State of Israel, which in itself is antisemitic. These are the people who are teaching the next generation of Palestinian children. This same teacher went further. In September of 2021, when six convicted terrorists escape from an Israeli prison, he posted praise and encouragement for their leader Zakaria Zubaidi, describing him as an 'honest and humble person' who 'stole our heart'. Zubaidi, considered a symbol of the intifada, is the former Jenin chief of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. So the translation of this post 'honest and humble person, who stole our heart in two days' is extraordinary. This is the kind of anti-Semitic hatred that's been taught. There is another example: Amin Ghazal, again a West Bank teacher who posts supporting Hamas—Hamas, who had just conducted the most vile attack on Israel, killing over 1,400 Israelis in their home at a music festival, beheading and burning babies—yet teaches in UN-endorsed Palestinian schools, is teaching this sort of hate. Women's Walk for Freedom 39 13:20 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory An hour ago I had the privilege of meeting a courageous group of women who have just finished an epic 640-kilometre journey on foot from Melbourne. They have come to this place, Parliament House, the people's house, to ask us for safety, security and certainty to rebuild their lives. Here, with them, are their daughters and granddaughters, many of them born here in Australia. After 10 years of living in our communities, working, learning and growing together with all of us, their home is here. I was honoured to stand beside a fellow Canberran, Piume, as she told of her agonising wait to become a permanent member of our Canberra community. I was astounded by her courage in telling her story. She went to Narrabundah High, not far from here, and she is studying nursing at the University of Canberra but is still on a bridging visa. Thanks to people in the community and some really powerful advocates, they've managed to get her international student visa down to a resident one, and the fees are being paid for by people in the community. She's determined to become a nurse to contribute to this country that she now calls home but doesn't recognise her as an Australian. She has no permanency and, like so many young people who have grown up here, feels like she's not being appreciated despite wanting to contribute, desperately wanting to be part of Australia and contribute. I want to just read out a couple of statements from a few of the women who made the 640-kilometres walk. 'I'm Harini. I am a 21-year-old refugee who came here almost 10 years ago. I was separated from my mum and my siblings, and it's been 11 years since I saw them. I came here with my dad, and I know neither home anymore. I feel like a foreigner every time I think about moving to a different country, and I don't want to ever do that. I want to live in Australia and I want to build my life here. I was going to become a doctor and give back to the community, but I was denied access to university. There are so many students out there like me—they have no access to uni or ever achieving their academic dreams, just because we don't have permanent visas. There was this pause in our lives and academic dreams or anything we want to become. We are part of this community. We want to give back to the community. I have friends and neighbours who want me to stay here, but the government needs to look at us and give something that we need, which is permanent residency.' This is from Rathy: 'There are 10,000 refugees in limbo. This is not one or two years—this is 10 years. That's why we thought this is something we have to do. That's why we got together for 22 women to walk from Melbourne to Canberra. I'm asking the people who are in Australia, please listen to our voices because we're walking with strength and hope.' This is another statement: 'My name is Fahime. I'm from Iran. I came to Australia in 2013 with my family. I do not have safety in my country. All around, the world understands about Iranian women. It is not free. It is not safe in our country. We are a family of four, and three of us are working and paying tax. My son was unable to attend university, and my daughter is now in the last year of high school. One month ago, my daughter was talking to a career assistant from school. They told her that she's unable to go to university because of her visa conditions. She came to me asking: "When will we get visas? I'm asking you because all my dreams of my future have been destroyed. We don't have a visa. I can't go to university. I can't reach my dreams. So I am going to give up and not go to school from tomorrow." I gave her hope that I will find a way to keep her dreams alive and send her to university. That is why I'm here today.' Australian Constitution 40 13:25 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria Our Prime Minister, Mr Albanese, has gotten himself into a bit of a hole, hasn't he, having gambled—that's what he's done—most of his political credit on a now completely discredited voice—a constitutional change famously supported by, guess who, Shaquille O'Neal and MC Hammer but subsequently rejected by an overwhelming majority of Australians. He now finds himself wondering what to do next. Well, Prime Minister, can I offer a suggestion. The first rule of holes is that, when you find yourself in a hole, you stop digging, yet I fear that digging himself into an even deeper hole is exactly what the Prime Minister plans to do. Having inflicted this expensive, divisive and unpopular referendum upon the Australian people, Prime Minister Albanese plans to double down. He plans to go again. This time he might ask Australians to vote on becoming a republic. If the Prime Minister wanted to pursue this course, it would certainly raise the question as to whether he has some sort of self-sabotage issue going on. Referendums are notoriously difficult to win and impossible to win without bipartisan support. The Prime Minister already knew that when he forged ahead without bipartisan support with his recent constitutional adventurism. It beggars belief that he might want to go again and try again. Not only is there no bipartisan support for a republic; there's no popular support. Who wants a washed-up politician becoming president? Not me, that's for sure. Polling published in the Sydney Morning Herald in January showed the support for a republic was at just 39 per cent—rock bottom. If that poll is accurate, Australians are even less inclined to vote for a republic now than they were in the expensive failed referendum of 1999. So why, in Prince Harry's name and having inflicted one failed national vote on a populace who are far more concerned about power bills than his constitutional fetish, would Prime Minister Albanese potentially force us back to the ballot box again? Can you imagine having to endure another year of being preached at by everyone from Magda Szubanski to Qantas and the AFL but this time in favour of a republic? No, thank you. Honestly, a Meghan Markle Netflix series would be more appealing—and that says a lot—than another referendum at this point. I think we should remind our Prime Minister that winning a referendum requires a double majority. You require the majority of support from states and voters nationwide. A majority means more than 50 per cent for the Prime Minister. I know, Prime Minister, that your government was elected on a primary vote of just 32.6 per cent, but that vote is not sufficient to amend our nation's most important document—our Constitution. I know that the Prime Minister has relocated to the Lodge in Canberra. He's there full time. It would appear that there is something that happens to a man when he relocates to this place in Canberra. The Canberra bubble is all consuming. What is in the water? I don't know. The ACT stood alone in support of the Voice and in support of this referendum. They stood alone for one reason: the ACT is just out of touch with reality. That's pretty clear. Even my home state of Victoria, who previously voted for the Premier, 'Chairman Andrews', overwhelmingly rejected the Prime Minister's proposal. The working class clearly reject constitutional change. What's our Prime Minister doing? He's living in denial. He's dug himself into a hole, and it would seem to me anyway that he's intent on digging his political grave. Let's just watch Treasurer Chalmers and Minister Plibersek fight with each other to hand him that shovel. Recognising that the Prime Minister is likely to ignore my advice and go right ahead and continue digging, can I ask just one small favour, Prime Minister, on behalf of all Australians out there that are sick of all this garbage: if, with all your digging of holes, you and your party manage to find where you buried my $275 power bill saving, I and many other Australians would be very grateful. Thank you, Prime Minister. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 It being 1.30, we shall now proceed to two-minute statements. Israel 41 13:30 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia This morning I voted with the majority of my colleagues here in support of the motion that supported Israel, and I just want to make some comments about that now. I want to say, firstly, that I strongly condemn the attack on Israel by Hamas terrorists and fully support Israel's right to self-defence. This attack on Israel is the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. I call upon all Australians to show their support for Israel and for the Jewish people. Early in the morning of 7 October, Hamas terrorists launched a horrific and unprovoked attack upon Israel, firing rockets and commencing an invasion by air, land and sea into Israeli sovereign territory. Since then, thousands of rockets have continued to target Israeli cities and regions. More than 1,400 Israelis have been murdered and innocent civilians have been taken hostage. These brutal and aggressive actions by Hamas do nothing to ensure stability in the region. Instead, their aim is to wipe the state of Israel off the face of the earth. The state of Israel deserves to have its borders respected, just like any other nation deserves that same right and respect. There can be no justification for the acts of terror that have been committed by Hamas. I strongly condemn the invasion of Israel by Hamas terrorists, and I also strongly condemn the disgraceful conduct of those at the pro-Palestinian rally at the Sydney Opera House just over a week ago. There is no place in modern democratic Australia for people who side with terror. Now and always, I stand with the people of Israel. In the words of former prime minister John Howard: There is no room here for moral equivalence, when you have people murdering babies. Prime Minister's Prizes for Science, Association of Australian Medical Research Institutes Rising Star Award 41 13:32 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria This week, parliament is hosting Australia's world-leading scientists, innovators, educators and medical researchers. These leaders work every day to discover, understand and improve the world around us and to teach the young minds of the future. Among those is Victorian professor Chris Greening, recipient of a Prime Minister's Prize for Science on Monday night. Professor Greening has made a world-first discovery that microbes take up tiny amounts of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. This is a process that means 350 million tonnes of carbon monoxide are removed from the atmosphere, countering air pollution and regulating climate change. On receiving the award, he said: Science became a passion when I realised that I could actually create new knowledge and make a difference in the world. It's been exhilarating ever since. Congratulations to Professor Greening and the team at Monash University. Tonight, I look forward to seeing which equally passionate scientist will be awarded the Rising Star Award by the Association of Australian Medical Research Institutes. I can't help but be hugely proud to see a shortlist full of Victorians. Victoria is no stranger to scientific excellence. Our state is a world leader when it comes to medical research and manufacturing. We are the home of the first-ever IVF pregnancy and of the bionic ear. Victoria will soon be the home of the only mRNA vaccine manufacturing facility in the Southern Hemisphere. All this is made possible because of our exceptional scientists, innovators, engineers, technologists, educators and all those who support them. We are building an ambitious long-term vision for science in this country, and I'm proud to be part of a government that backs our scientists. Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Voice 41 13:34 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise today to speak with a heavy heart on the outcome of Saturday's referendum. Saturday's result was not the outcome that so many of us were hoping for and working towards. I want to acknowledge the hurt, pain and the strong emotions that are being felt right now in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community, particularly in my home state of South Australia. To Uncle Moogy Sumner, to Jakirah Telfer and to Sally Scales in particular, I am so sorry. Thank you for your wisdom, your generosity and your courage. Thank you for sharing the knowledge of your ancestors with me and all of South Australia. I am so sorry we couldn't get it done this time around. This referendum saw a Trumpian campaign of misinformation and fear led by Peter Dutton. As Uncle Moogy said, some people 'made the Voice into something that it wasn't'. I also want to acknowledge the leadership of Senator Dorinda Cox, our great warrior for truth and wisdom here on the Greens crossbench. In her words: For those who are feeling a sense of loss, we say to you: the pathway to First Nations justice does not end today, and the Greens will not stop fighting. We need to work together to understand the truth about the past so that we can move forward together. As Minister Burney said on the night of the referendum: … achieving progress is never easy. Progress doesn't always move in a straight line. There a breakthroughs—and there are heartbreaks … Be proud of who you are. Be proud of your identity. Be proud of the 65,000 years of history and culture that you are a part of. And your rightful place in this country. Right now is a time for healing and reflection, but we will keep fighting. Domestic and Family Violence 42 13:36 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia You cannot deliver on the national ambition to end violence against women within a generation if you don't focus on children. Violence is a problem of epidemic proportions in Australia. In some places, though—not likely in the comfort of inner-city living—what is normal can at times be really disturbing. The hypocrisy of Labor, the Greens and Senator David Pocock in rejecting an audit of services that exist for the most vulnerable is breathtaking. You said no to understanding through a royal commission the experiences of child sexual abuse and to understanding better the necessary scale of response. It is action that makes a difference; doing nothing does nothing. You did nothing. The abuse of children knows no boundaries, but alcohol and drug abuse, poverty, housing shortages and unemployment—in short, family dysfunction—increase the opportunity for risk. Surely you cannot be blind to that? Maybe you say no because you have the privilege of sleeping soundly at night, in sharp contrast to the children who are terrified to sleep so instead roam the streets. I don't get it. The rate of hospitalisation due to family violence for Indigenous women compared to others is breathtaking. I'm talking about hospitalisation at a rate of eight for every 1,000 women compared to two for non-Indigenous women. I'm talking about one in five women and one in 21 men reporting sexual violence in evidence based statistics. These are not numbers; these are people. Did you notice who was missing from those statistics? It was the children. Children are hidden as a representation of the available data. They are silent, and your silence does nothing to protect them or to help their families to also protect them. That is also your national shame. Western Australia: Fundraising 42 13:38 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia On a brighter note, it gives me great pleasure to rise to share two minutes worth of happiness with the chamber. As most Western Australians know, this weekend is Telethon Weekend. What is also happening this weekend is that, on Sunday 22 October, Andy Donaldson, a three-time world-record-holding swimmer from Perth, will swim from Rottnest Island to Elizabeth Quay to raise money for youth mental health and the telethon institute. In July 2023, Andy made history by becoming the first person ever to complete the Oceans Seven—the world's seven toughest channel swims—within the space of one year. His fundraising effort this weekend involves swimming 20 kilometres from Rottnest Island to Leighton Beach. When he arrives at Leighton Beach, Andy will be met by the Premier, Roger Cook, and they will run together from Leighton Beach to Mosman Bay. Joining them on the run will also be David Mundy, Dr Kirsty Bellombra and Jason Rhine. They'll also be met by the Fremantle nippers from the Fremantle Surf Lifesaving Club, and then they'll be back in the water at Mosman Bay and will swim to Elizabeth Quay. All up, Andy will cover 33 kilometres to get from Rottnest to Elizabeth Quay. As with all fundraising ventures, none of this could be achieved without the contribution and support of many volunteers. I particularly thank and give a big shout-out to my mate Bob Kucera, who has kindly volunteered to provide and skipper the support vessel that will be with Andy throughout the crossing from Rottnest to Leighton Beach. Andy's Swim for Telethon is aiming to raise $33,000, which will be used specifically to improve outcomes for youth mental health. Not only is Andy Donaldson an incredible athlete; he plans to keep swimming to raise money and awareness of ocean health, climate change and other important causes. Andy's swim this weekend also marks the return of the out-of-event solo crossings from Rottnest to Fremantle. Good luck, Andy and crew. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 Thank you for that spark of joy, Senator Sterle. Albanese Government 43 13:40 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I've served in this parliament over the terms of four prime ministers, and Prime Minister Albanese has easily been the worst of them. He promised he would lead a more accountable government in the wake of Scott Morrison's secret ministries. The Labor government's conduct in parliament has been exactly the opposite of this principle. They have shut down debate on critical legislation and rammed through disastrous bills with the enthusiastic support of the Greens and Senator David Pocock. Yesterday they refused to support Senator Nampijinpa Price's motion supporting a royal commission into child sexual abuse in Indigenous communities, making the disgusting claim that it was playing politics. The hypocrisy and callousness of this statement is breathtaking. The motion wasn't playing politics, but voting it down was. This is the Prime Minister who promised a $275 reduction in electricity bills, but they have gone up almost 50 per cent under his government. Despite strong public support for my measures, Labor has refused to look into the Aboriginal industry corruption, children being treated for gender dysphoria and Indigenous identity fraud. My approach to these issues has always been in the interests of the Australian people. I am disgusted at the seat warmers in this chamber who tell me privately that they agree with these initiatives and policies but refuse to support them in public. Lastly, this Prime Minister should—but will most definitely not—fall on his sword for imposing a racially divisive referendum on the Australian people and blowing more than $400 million on a lost cause. The PM can hold a robodebt royal commission but not a royal commission into the sexual abuse of children? Australians are not fools. That was evident last weekend. They are fed up with the politics, the false promises and the blatant deceit this government shows towards them. Australians will have their say at the next election. Hopefully, this government will be gone—thrown out on its ear. McKerrow, Mrs Shirley, OAM 43 13:42 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales I rise to note the passing of one of the most inspirational women I have ever had the pleasure to know. Shirley McKerrow OAM was not a politician, but she was definitely a woman in politics. She was the first woman ever elected as president of a state division of what was then the Country Party when in 1976 she was elected president of the Victorian division. In 1981 she became the first woman in Australia to hold the position of president of any political party. It was around that time that I came to know her. I was an obnoxious teenager stuffing campaign envelopes and Shirley was a dignified, calm, intelligent woman who could absolutely hold her own in a room full of men who thought that they were big political strategists. Shirley was a formidable leader who never lost her grace and style. She was also so much more than just her political life. She was a committed and dedicated community member, serving on multiple committees and associations. She worked actively for her regional community in Sunbury and later Darwin, where she moved after her time as our federal president. She was also a wife and a loving mother to Dianne, Ian, Lachlan and Sally. Shirley was my inspiration. She was without a doubt a shining example of commitment and dedication to our party, to her family and to her community. She will be sadly missed. My thoughts and prayers go out to her friends and family. Collingwood Football Club 43 13:44 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria On a much more positive note I stand today to talk about, share with a sense of pride and joy, and celebrate one of the greatest and most spectacular grand final victories in modern history. It goes without saying that that was the Collingwood Football Club swooping in to emerge as the triumphant winners of the 2023 AFL premiership. This achievement is not just a testament to the immense talent of the players—and I see some smiles there. It goes beyond just the players. The players are a reflection of the unwavering dedication and spirit of the entire Magpie community, including leadership from the board and management, and it's a story of resilience, teamwork and sheer determination to overcome challenges, side by side. Senator McKenzie 207825 This is outrageous! Senator CICCONE 281503 Throughout the season, our players displayed unparalleled skill, Senator, and passion and sportsmanship. They trained relentlessly, fought fiercely and never gave up, Senator McKenzie, even in the face of adversity. Their commitment to the game and to others was truly inspirational, and it is the unity—that the Pies came together, to ensure that glorious victory in that last weekend in September. Craig McRae and the other coaches, too, deserve immense credit for their strategic brilliance and leadership. Their guidance and wisdom and their sheer determination steered our team through highs and many lows, but shaped them into the formidable force that won the premiership after all. But let us not forget the heart and soul of the club, and that is you, the fans—your unwavering support; your cheers; your belief in our team. Fully determined, you stood by them in every match and every training moment, and your passion ignited the fire that led us to this historic triumph. And the victory belongs to you as much as to the players. Go the Pies! And here's to next year. Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice 44 13:46 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia This has been a tough six months for First Nations mob. Right now, many of us are hurting. We are sad, we are angry and we are heartbroken. I want to assure you that all of these feelings are justified. We all process grief in different ways, and we are in what has been called a period of grieving. We are strong and resilient, and we will bounce back; we always do. This is just another setback in a long list of setbacks that we have endured since colonisation, but we are still here and we always will be here. We all know, too well, that we still have a lot of work to do, both in this place and out in our communities. My message for my mob out there is to take care of yourself. Take the time you need to rest and to heal. Ground yourself in your community and the places where you feel safe. Check in with one another and hold each other, as we gather ourselves together after this campaign. If needed, please call 13YARN for some support. Allies, please wear your colours; show your support. Right now, we need you to show us that you are safe and you will continue to stand with us in solidarity. I know that, for many First Nations people, this was not just a debate on constitutional recognition; it was a debate about our lives, and that is why this result has been devastating for so many of us. We will come back together, as we always do, to continue the fight for our rights, our culture and our country. Select Committee on Australia's Excess Mortality 44 13:47 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria In March this year, I asked the Senate to establish a select committee to investigate excess deaths and unexplained mortality in our nation. At that time, back in 2022, there had been tens of thousands—tens of thousands—of excess deaths reported. It was like a full passenger plane—a big one; one of those jet aircraft—crashing every single week for 11 months, without explanation or investigation. Yet, incredibly, the Senate refused to establish it. Only four senators—just four—had the courage to back my committee. Now, it wasn't just the Senate that was determined to ignore the elephant in the room. With a few honourable exceptions, it was the entire political class in Australia, and at every level. Thankfully, there was one group that didn't turn their backs on the Australian people in their time of need: the medical experts at the Australian Medical Professionals Society, otherwise known as AMPS. They stepped up to the plate and did the hard work that my colleagues in this place, unfortunately and shamefully, refused to do. Now they have put their findings in a book titled Too Many Dead: An Inquiry into Australia's Excess Mortality. This is bound to attract attention around the world. As I speak in this chamber, AMPS are here in Canberra presenting their findings to elected members and senators and their staff. I urge my colleagues in this place to have a heart—hopefully one that's not scarred with vaccine-induced myocarditis—and to take the time to listen to these medical experts and, most importantly, to act. The time has come to act. Australians still continue to die in large numbers, and, unfortunately, the inaction in this place speaks volumes. Fuel 44 13:49 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania We all dread the moment when the little orange light comes on in the car—the fuel tank is empty again. The cost of filling it up climbs higher every single time you head to the bowser. The average price of petrol in Lonnie at the moment is $2.15 for unleaded, and that's the same price it was on 30 March 2022, when the coalition government cut the fuel excise in half. We recognised people couldn't afford these prices back then, so why aren't we halving the excise now? The cost of living is hitting people harder than ever, and the fuel excise hits low-income and working families the hardest. Think about it: the mum and dad with two cars and three kids to run around pay the same price for fuel as a billionaire does. The billionaire isn't going to notice an extra 5c a litre on their petrol bill, but the family sure will. It costs $3 billion to cut the fuel excise for six months. That's $3 billion more than the government wants you to pay in taxes and $3 billion they want in their back pocket instead of yours. Halving the excise would be a win-win for Labor. It would give Australians some relief while they struggle to pay power bills and grocery bills, but it would also be a way to help reduce inflation at the same time. We know that to bring inflation down we need people to spend less money. If we're spending more money on petrol, it's more money into the economy and it pushes inflation up. If we spend less money on petrol, it can help get inflation under control. Christmas is just around the corner and, with conflicts happening overseas, petrol prices are expected to keep going up. Come on Labor, give Australians an early Christmas present and half the fuel excise again—please. Israel 45 13:51 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory It's hard to adequately articulate just how devastating the situation that we are witnessing in Israel and Gaza is. At this moment, I echo calls to protect civilian lives and adhere to international humanitarian law. What we are witnessing is a heartbreaking loss of life, with innocent civilians on all sides suffering. I welcome the provision of $10 million in humanitarian assistance for civilians in Gaza and hope that the government will look carefully at what more can be done. My thoughts are with all those impacted—Israelis, Palestinians and the Australians who remain in Gaza. My thoughts are also with communities here impacted by events overseas and worried about friends, family and homeland. The attacks on Israel by Hamas were terrorist attacks and have been rightfully condemned. It is also right to condemn any indiscriminate attacks that target civilian targets, especially hospitals. But in the aftermath the first imperative must be protecting civilian lives, Palestinian and Israeli alike. Innocent people do not deserve to suffer in this conflict, and I'm hopeful that all sides will move to de-escalate the conflict and prioritise the sanctity of human life. The language we use about this conflict matters. As Mike Burgess, the Director-General of Security, has warned us, inflammatory language does damage. It does a disservice to the people involved in this conflict and it does not serve us as a country. We're hearing reports of increased incidents of vilification in communities around the country and we must stand against this in our communities. Small Business 45 13:53 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales On Monday this week Senator David Pocock, Allegra Spender, who's the member for Wentworth, and I hosted a breakfast in Parliament House for Australian small businesses and their peak organisations. There were over 150 attendees, and it was wonderful to speak with so many small businesses about the work they do as great innovators and employers. One thing that was clear during these discussions is that small business in Australia is facing layer upon layer of challenges and that the Albanese Labor government is leaving them out in the cold. Not only are the government not offering support to small business; they are shackling them with increased regulatory burdens. The closing the loopholes bill is just the latest item in Labor's war on small business. It was described as 'a direct barrier to growth', and that is the same sentiment I kept on hearing from small businesses across Western Sydney during the sitting break. I was grateful to be joined by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Sussan Ley, as we heard about the burdens of the increased cost of rent, materials and energy and now an assault on their ability to hire casual staff. We spoke to countless business owners who can't even begin to comprehend how they are meant to cope with the imposition of all the red tape contained in a 280-page bill and an explanatory memorandum that is over 500 pages long. We hear time and time again of big businesses making mistakes in payments and processes. That occurs in companies with legal departments and HR teams. Yet we expect small business to just absorb this, with more and more regulatory compliance. This government needs to realise what is happening in the real world and give small business the space to grow, to run their businesses and to keep employing Australians without unnecessary and costly interference. World Menopause Day 45 13:55 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Today, 18 October, marks World Menopause Day. This is our opportunity to shine a light on this far-reaching issue, because, like in so many areas of women's health, stigma and discrimination too often mean that the public conversation is too silent and therefore the health and economic responses fall short. Menopause impacts women's physical, mental and sexual health. It can affect relationships, workforce participation and many other parts of women's lives. Today, we raise awareness of menopause and the support options available to improve health and wellbeing. The average age for women to reach menopause in Australia is 51. Most are between 45 and 55 years of age. It can be physiological or due to medical or surgical treatment which stops ovarian function. Around 80 per cent of women will experience symptoms, with 20 per cent getting severe symptoms. The impacts on women's health and wellbeing are significant, and they should be talked about. We should shine a light on menopause today, 18 October, because across the spectrum of women's health issues there is so much more to do on this issue and many others at all levels of government, in our workplaces and in our communities. Our government is absolutely committed to doing work to address gender bias in our healthcare system and improve health outcomes for women and girls in Australia. We have just closed our public consultation which has asked women to share their stories and experiences in our healthcare system, where, of course, menopause was one of the issues raised. As I've said many times in this chamber, when it comes to women's health, too many women have felt unheard and undersupported. This is so often the case for menopause too, so on World Menopause Day let's shine a light on this important issue and work together to ensure that women get the support they need right across their lives and in their communities. South Australia: Truro Bypass 46 13:57 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Yesterday, I tabled a non-conforming petition signed by more than 12,000 people in support of the Truro bypass project in South Australia. The Truro bypass is one of more than 400 infrastructure projects which have been put at risk by the Albanese government's 90-day review of the infrastructure investment pipeline—a review that is now at 171 days and counting. This is the review that has been delayed by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, because, like the rest of the Albanese government, Minister King has been distracted by Labor's failed, divisive, $450 million Voice referendum. If you listen to the backgrounding provided by the minister's office, the 90-day review has found out that the cost of infrastructure projects being delivered by state governments, most of which are Labor state governments, has blown out. That will surprise no-one on this side of the chamber. It'll surprise no-one in Victoria, where the Andrews-now-Allen government has entered into a shady deal with the CFMMEU, which is resulting in massive blowouts in the cost of infrastructure projects. The government is threatening to cancel and delay more projects under the guise of this 171-day-and-counting infrastructure review. That's on top of the $9.6 billion of cuts and delays to infrastructure projects in last year's October budget. The Truro bypass is a particularly important project. It's important to all of those who use the Sturt Highway, which is the main direct Sydney to Adelaide road freight route and the main highway from South Australia's Riverland to Adelaide. The Truro bypass is also an important first stage of a planned Greater Adelaide bypass, which would take freight trucks around the Adelaide Hills instead of funnelling them into the suburbs of Adelaide. I call on the government to release the report into infrastructure funding and give communities certainty over the future— (Time expired) Foodbank Australia 46 13:59 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania It was a privilege to hear from Foodbank Australia— The PRESIDENT 112096 Oh, that's it. Thank you. We could have a competition to see who can get the most words out. We now move to question time. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 46 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE First Nations Australians 46 14:00 Senator 300644 South Australia LIDDLE () (): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Yesterday, when speaking on a matter of urgency motion by Senator Nampijinpa Price calling for a royal commission into sexual abuse in Indigenous communities and an audit of Indigenous-specific programs, Senator Ayres said, '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.' Minister, do you agree with Senator Ayres that a motion regarding child sexual abuse was about the failed Voice referendum rather than being about vulnerable children? An opposition senator: Shame. 14:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Well, I'll take the interjection about shame because I think the shame is in trying to use an issue as serious as child abuse for political purposes, as that question does. There was no-one in this chamber— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Scarr? Senator Scarr 282997 President, impugning the motive of my good friend Senator Liddle— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Scarr, why are you on your feet? Senator Scarr 282997 I rise on a point of order—impugning the motive of Senator Liddle, accusing her— The PRESIDENT 112096 It's not a point of order. There was no impugning. Minister Wong, please continue. I ask Senators to listen with respect and in silence. Senator WONG 00AOU Everyone in this chamber would condemn child abuse. Everyone in this chamber, regardless of political— An opposition senator interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU That should be withdrawn then I'll respond to the primary. An opposition senator interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Ruston, I'm attempting to deal with a request to withdraw. Senator Wong, I'm sorry, there was so much noise, I'm not quite sure who you are asking me to ask to withdraw. Senator WONG 00AOU It's regrettable that people with senior positions in this place would think that they shouldn't withdraw that. I'll repeat what I said. Everyone in this chamber condemns child abuse. Everyone in this chamber believes that every child has a right to grow up safe and healthy. Whatever our political views, I don't agree with the way in which it has been put to me—the implication that was put in the question. I will again repeat: every decent person across this country would stand against and does stand against child abuse, so to imply there is anything other than that view across this chamber, I think, is wrong and unfair. What I'm saying is that— Opposition members interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister Wong, have you finished your contribution? Senator WONG 00AOU Obviously, I was not in this chamber. There are somewhat pressing matters, as the chamber would be aware, that anyone in this role would have to be engaging in. But I would say this: I understand the government's position to be that we don't need another royal commission to tell us that concrete action is needed, that we do all share a focus on the immediate issue of keeping women and children safe and of ending violence against women and children. You would be aware our last budget provided substantial funding— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Liddle, a first supplementary? 14:04 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia Senator Ayres also said the motion was 'all about the politics and not about the solution. It's always about the politics, never about the solution.' Senator Nampijinpa Price clearly wants a find a solution by holding a royal commission into this most serious issue. Do you agree with Senator Ayres that this is about politics and not a solution? The PRESIDENT 112096 Before I call the minister, I am going to ask for respectful silence on both sides of the chamber. 14:05 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I don't think anybody watching this debate over these last months would believe that there hasn't been a lot of politics played. From questions yesterday and questions today, it's quite clear that there are those on the coalition side who wish to make a political point out of the referendum. Senator Cash couldn't help herself yesterday and the day before with digs about the referendum. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator WONG 00AOU Fair enough; I understand that she's a politician, and she's going to behave as such. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash! Senator WONG 00AOU But I would say is this: the Prime Minister has made clear that the next steps after this have to be discussed, and not just with one, not just with two and not just with three members of parliament and not just with a party room and not just with this chamber, but with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities across this country. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Liddle, a further supplementary question? 14:06 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia Senator Ayres also said— Senator Cash I0M Oh, it gets worse. Senator LIDDLE 300644 Senator Ayres also said: 'What we as a government will do is listen. We will listen carefully to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.' Minister, why won't you listen to Senator Nampijinpa Price, an elected Indigenous woman from an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community, and back her call for a royal commission into child sexual abuse in Indigenous communities? 14:06 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia As that supplementary was being prepared, Senator Cash said, 'It gets worse,' and then the questioner came to be about what Senator Ayres said, which is 'listening'. That says something, doesn't it? What a terrible idea! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, there is ample opportunity during the sitting week to make whatever comments you want by signing up to an adjournment or some other opportunity. Now is not that time. I'm asking you to listen in respectful silence. Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU One person on any side of politics does not speak for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities of this country—whatever side, whether it's Senator McCarthy or Senator Nampijinpa Price. We need to deal with communities respectfully. I would invite those opposite to look at the results in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander polling booths and to see that the reality is that many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people voted yes. Many people are hurting. (Time expired) Israel 48 14:07 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Penny Wong. Can the minister update the Senate on the security situation in the Middle East following the abhorrent attacks on Israel by Hamas? 14:07 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia My thanks to Senator Grogan for her question. I appreciate her ongoing concern over the crisis unfolding in the Middle East. We have seen a devastating loss of innocent life since the heinous attacks on Israel by the brutal terrorist group Hamas. We continue to call for the unconditional release of all hostages. Colleagues, the scenes from the explosion at a Gaza City hospital overnight are deeply distressing. As the Prime Minister said this morning, every innocent life matters whether Israeli or Palestinian. Our thoughts are with those killed, with those injured and their loved ones. The protection of civilians wherever they live must come first and respect for international humanitarian law is paramount. We condemn any indiscriminate attacks and the targeting of civilian infrastructure, including hospitals. Australia joins with others in calling for international law to always be upheld. The humanitarian situation in Gaza continues to deteriorate, and we reiterate our call for safe and unimpeded humanitarian access to Gaza. We support the establishment of a corridor to enable humanitarian needs to be met and to ensure the $10 million in humanitarian assistance we have announced reaches those who need it. We are encouraging the work of the United States, Egypt and others towards this goal. As I told this place earlier this week, our calls for international humanitarian law to be respected are about protecting innocent life. But they are also about our shared interests. They are about containing this conflict—and containing this conflict matters. If conflict were to spill over across the region, risks to Israel's security would be compounded, as they would for Israeli and Palestinian civilians and civilian populations throughout the region. Averting regional escalation matters to Israel. It matters to the people of the region and it matters to the world. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Grogan, first supplementary? 14:09 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Thank you, Minister, for all that you're doing for those innocent civilians in Palestine and in Israel. With this challenging security situation, can the minister update the Senate on the Australian government's effort to assist Australians who are seeking to leave? 14:10 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Last night an Australian government assisted departure flight landed in Sydney from Dubai, carrying 222 passengers, and 164 of those were Australian citizens. It was wonderful to see Australians reunited with their families at the airport. An Australian government assisted departure flight is due to land in Sydney from London today, and, subject to security conditions, we are planning an assisted departure flight from Tel Aviv to Dubai today. We continue to assist Australians who want to leave the Occupied Palestinian Territories. This includes supporting Australians in the West Bank on departure options, such as transport to Jordan with our international partners and accommodation. Australians in the West Bank who want to leave should contact the Consular Emergency Centre. More than 1,500 previously registered Australians have now left Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Grogan, second supplementary? 14:11 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Given the regional situation, can the minister update the chamber on the Australian government travel advice for Lebanon? 14:11 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Grogan. Since the beginning of this crisis, the government has updated the Australian government travel advice for neighbouring Lebanon. As I said on the weekend, we are urging Australians in Lebanon to consider whether the need for them to remain there is essential. I urge that again today. If Australians in Lebanon do wish to leave, they should be aware that a crisis could limit commercial departure options. If they want to leave, we encourage them to take the first available option. The areas of Lebanon bordering Israel, Golan Heights and Syria remain at level 4, 'Do not travel.' Other areas of Lebanon remain at level 3, 'Reconsider your need to travel.' This means Australians should avoid non-essential travel. Please access the latest travel advice on the Smartraveller website. Australians who need emergency consular assistance should contact the Consular Emergency Centre. Israel 49 14:12 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Has the Prime Minister spoken with the Prime Minister of Israel since the horrific attacks by Hamas on 7 October? If not, has the Prime Minister sought to schedule a call with Mr Netanyahu, and has one been scheduled? 14:12 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I will seek further advice, but my recollection is that a call was requested after the attack. My recollection is that, when I last spoke to the Prime Minister's office about this, the call had not yet been scheduled. Obviously, there has been a lot of engagement with the Israeli government, in particular via the ambassador. I would make this point, and I would encourage all in this place to heed the words of Mr Burgess about the importance of handling issues sensitively, particularly at this time and particularly given the events overnight. We know, as I said when this motion was being debated, this is an issue about which some in Australia's community feel very deeply. We know that there are strongly held different views in our community. We know it is important that all Australians, regardless of their views on this issue, do feel that they are not being excluded and that their perspective and their experience are something that those in leadership positions, those in this parliament, are aware of. I would continue to urge there to be a mature, measured, bipartisan approach to these issues, given the sensitivity of these matters within the Australian community. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, first supplementary? 14:14 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia In February, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet confirmed that the only communication with Prime Minister Albanese and the Prime Minister of Israel, Mr Netanyahu, was a phone call on 4 August 2022 and a letter on 5 January this year. Since then, has the Prime Minister, Prime Minister Albanese, had any further contact with Israel's Prime Minister, and, if so, what has been the nature of those points of contacts? 14:15 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I can advise in relation to the primary question. I can confirm a call was sought on Sunday formally, which was obviously very soon after the attack. We are yet to receive a confirmed time for a call from the Israeli government, which is perfectly understandable given the circumstances Israel is facing. I would say to you, Senator, that obviously the Prime Minister has, as have I, engaged with members of the Jewish community and the ambassador of Israel. I know the Prime Minister has engaged with the ambassador personally. I would also indicate, as I did earlier in the week, that, consistent with our view that escalation or spillover of this conflict is neither in Israel's interest nor in civilians' interests across this region, we have reached out to governments of the region to express that view. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister. Senator Birmingham, second supplementary? 14:16 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Leaders from the United States, the European Union and Germany have visited or are visiting Israel to demonstrate their country's strong support for the Israeli people, to send a strong message regarding the savage attacks perpetrated by Hamas and to seek to ensure the conflict does not further widen. Leaders of the UK and France are also expected to visit in coming days, and even President Zelenskyy of Ukraine is seeking to visit. Will Prime Minister Albanese follow the lead of Australia's allies and visit Israel? 14:16 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I would make the point, in terms of that list, that obviously, with the relevant members of the P5 and others who have more direct engagement with the region, we would want to support very much their engagement and their work, for the reasons I outlined. Our focus here is on what it is we can do from afar. Well, we've had a number of focuses, obviously—bringing home those Australians who needed assistance to come home. We have done that, and I do thank all those who were involved in doing so. I thank Senator O'Neill, who was there when people arrived because I wasn't able to attend. Thank you for that work. The second focus has been to try and do what we can to prevent this conflict escalating. (Time expired) Israel 50 14:17 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister Wong. With even hospitals in Gaza being bombed, leaving hundreds of dead, will the government now call for the invasion of Gaza to end? 14:18 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia First, in relation to Gaza, we have seen devastating loss of innocent lives since the attacks on Israel by Hamas. I would again say the scenes from the explosion at Gaza City hospital are deeply distressing and it is clear there has been a devastating loss of life. We should all continue to assert that every innocent life matters, whether Israeli or Palestinian, and we should extend, obviously, our deepest sympathies to all killed, those injured and their loved ones. There are obviously conflicting reports about what has occurred. What I would say, Senator—and you would be aware from my comments from day one and my speech to this chamber in relation to the motion which was passed—we recognise Israel's right to defend itself. What I have also said is that how Israel conducts this conflict matters. I have also consistently—as have the United States and, yesterday, the United Kingdom—called for the observance of international law. We have consistently said that civilian lives should be protected. This is a very distressing and difficult situation, and it is important that Australia continues to assert the position that really we have always asserted, as a matter of principle, which is that we urge the protection of civilian lives. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters, first supplementary? 14:20 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Almost half the people in Gaza are children. Israel's siege and bombing of Gaza, halting all water, fuel and food to the people, is creating a humanitarian catastrophe. Does the government support Israel's illegal blockade and bombing of Gaza? 14:20 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I would refer to my previous answer. We believe that Israel has a right to defend itself. However, we have always, from the beginning of this, called for the protection of human life and for restraint. I would ask the Greens to be aware of what I said in response to Senator Birmingham's question. I would ask all people in this place to look carefully at what the director-general of ASIO said about words being inflamed. This is not an ordinary political debate. This is a debate where all of us—and we have different views; we also have views where we come together; let's not forget that—have to be very careful about how it is we talk about these issues and avoid inflammatory language. Every civilian life matters, whether Palestinian or Israeli. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters, second supplementary? 14:21 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland These actions are war crimes, and legal experts have said Israel's actions breach international law. Why is the government refusing to acknowledge what the world is witnessing? Will the government now agree that Israel's actions are in breach of international law? 14:22 Senator 00AOU South Australia WONG (—) (): I refer to my previous answer. I again say— Senator Steele-John 250156 It takes your breath away. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Steele-John! Senator WONG 00AOU I am responding to the interjection with some disbelief that people are so unable to listen to what some of our officers are telling us— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Steele-John, I've called you to order. Senator WONG 00AOU and understanding what's happening in the community. Every life matters. Every innocent life matters. Every civilian life matters. We urge Israel, in defending itself, to observe international law and to protect human life. That has been my position since my very first public response to these events. Health Care 50 14:23 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Gallagher. Can the minister provide an update on how the Albanese government is delivering on its commitment to introduce Medicare urgent care clinics across Australia? How are these clinics helping Australians access affordable health care when they need it, and how are they helping to alleviate pressure on hospital emergency departments? 14:23 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Bilyk for the question. It's an important question about Medicare and about new models of care, with the Medicare urgent care clinics that we promised during the election. We are delivering on that promise. The first 30 of the 58 Medicare urgent care clinics have opened their doors and are helping Australians to get timely and affordable access to the health care they need. We have committed $493 million over five years to establish these Medicare urgent care clinics. This is a new approach to providing care for people who require medical treatment urgently but don't need an ambulance or a hospital stay. The Medicare urgent care clinic provides another option for people to seek the medical care that they need. These clinics are open extended hours, seven days a week. They're being established in existing general practices and community health centres, to make the best use of existing facilities and leverage the existing workforce. All of the services provided by the Medicare urgent care clinics are bulk-billed, with highly trained doctors and nurses to provide care at the Medicare urgent care clinics with no need for an appointment. The urgent care clinics deliver service from the time people walk in right through to fixing people up, so that the people then leave without putting pressure on emergency departments. This morning I joined with the ACT Chief Minister, Andrew Barr, to announce that from today Medicare urgent care clinics will be integrated across the very successful Canberra Health Services walk-in centres across Canberra Health Services' five locations at Gungahlin, Belconnen, Dickson, Weston and Tuggeranong. Funding to integrate the walk-in centres with the urgent care clinic network will increase the number of nurses and allied health professionals to increase coverage at all centres. Open seven days a week across extended hours, all services will be fully bulk-billed. The clinics are jointly funded, with the Commonwealth providing $7.1 million over three years to the ACT government for this purpose. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bilyk, first supplementary? 14:25 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania Can the Minister outline how the Albanese Labor government is working with states and territories to make sure local health needs are reflected in the planning and delivery of this new model of care? How are the Medicare urgent care clinics being integrated with existing health and hospital services, including general practice and hospital emergency departments? 14:25 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Bilyk for the supplementary. It's really important that the Medicare urgent care clinics are integrated with the services provided by GPs and by hospital EDs. Through working closely with the states and territories, we're ensuring that services provided from the Medicare urgent care clinics are responsive to the needs of local communities. We're also working with GPs and PHNs to ensure the urgent care clinics are set up to deliver the end-to-end care that people need. By working to ensure quality of services provided by the urgent care clinics, we will help ease pressure on hospital emergency departments, which we know that we have to do. In New South Wales, for example, it's estimated that almost half of emergency departments to New South Wales— Senator GALLAGHER ING President, I can't even hear myself think because of Senator Ruston. I can't. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator GALLAGHER ING Thank you very much, Senator Scarr. The PRESIDENT 112096 Just resume your seat for a moment. Senator GALLAGHER ING Can I do a point of order for myself— The PRESIDENT 112096 No. Senator GALLAGHER ING which is that Senator Ruston has not stopped. I started speaking and she started speaking, and I would ask you to draw her to order. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Gallagher. I'll wait for silence in the chamber. I have asked you repeatedly, Senator Ruston, to listen in respectful silence. I was about to ask Senator Ruston again to listen in respectful silence. Your constant interjections are disorderly, and I ask you to stop. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING Thank you. We know that they've got a sore point on Medicare, because we know what they did to Medicare. They cut Medicare, and they can't stand the fact that there's a government in town that's investing in Medicare and actually delivering the health services that people need, something that Senator Ruston failed to do when she— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bilyk, second supplementary? 14:27 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania ():  How do the Medicare urgent care clinics complement other actions that the Albanese government is taking to strengthen Medicare and improve Australia's primary healthcare system for the benefit of communities? Why are these actions vital to ensuring Australians continue to have access to affordable, high-quality health services? 14:28 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Would you like to start, Senator Ruston? Your time starts now. Tell us about the cuts you made to Medicare. Tell us about the GP tax that Peter Dutton brought in. Tell us about the failure index the Medicare bulk-billing rates and the MBS items. Tell us about that. I'll give you an extension of time to do that—to actually front up and be honest about what you did to Medicare and the fact that we are now investing billions of dollars into the workforce, into the support for services and into new ways of doing things through the Medicare urgent care clinics, right across this country, that you have never supported and have always criticised. And what do we see now? Thousands and thousands of people, out of hours or on weekends, with their kids, when they get sick, being able to access fully bulk-billed services, something that you never dealt with and that we have dealt with in the first 18 months. We have 30 centres across the country providing this service to the Australian community, at no charge, to make sure they can access the health services they need when they need them. (Time expired) Australian Constitution 52 14:29 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. On Saturday night, when the Prime Minister spoke on the result of the referendum, he said: 'This is not a 'yes' or 'no' vote. We are all Australians.' If we're all Australians, Minister, why does your government have race based policies when it should be based on individual needs, not Indigenous and non-Indigenous policies? 14:29 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia We are all Australian, and the Prime Minister, in his speech and how he sought to engage post the referendum, emphasised the importance of coming together at this time, when obviously there were different views in our community. There is a lot of hurt in the Australian community and within the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community, and we need to be respectful about that. I think your question essentially goes to why there are Aboriginal-specific programs. When we're in government and when they're in government, we don't always agree with each other about how they are to be approached, and they are to reflect the commitment to closing the gap, which is based on factually based assessments of disadvantage. One of the things, one of the stats, which always chills me every time it is raised or referenced is that you're almost twice as likely to die before you're one year old if you're born an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child. No-one thinks that's acceptable, so we want programs and we want policies which change that. Everybody would want that. We all want the best for our children. Everyone would want that. In how we do that, there may be differences of views, and you've heard some today with Senator Liddle's question. What the Prime Minister has said is that we will listen to community, we will work with community and we will engage with community because we understand that, if we work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, the outcomes for those communities will be better than if we simply decide what we are doing to them. (Time expired) 14:32 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Labor's premise for the Voice to Parliament was to have Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people advise on Indigenous policy and to address their issues. Yesterday, you had an Indigenous member of the Senate tell you of the traumatic sexual abuse occurring in Indigenous communities. Why did your government vote down a motion for a royal commission into child sexual abuse in Indigenous communities? 14:32 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I think that's a very similar question—and subject matter—to what Senator Liddle asked. I make the point, which I did in relation to that question, that we don't need another royal commission to tell us that concrete action is needed if all of us support and want to focus on the immediate issue of keeping women and children safe. I again go back to the point you made about why we don't do what Senator Nampijinpa Price demands. It's because the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community is broader than a single member of this parliament. That is what Senator McCarthy would say, and that is Senator Stewart would say—that what we want to do— Senator Henderson ZN4 That is a very unfair characterisation, Senator Wong. Senator WONG 00AOU No, I think it is a recognition that we want to engage broadly with the community on the way forward. (Time expired) 14:33 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland The Voice to Parliament referendum has exposed the Aboriginal-industry gravy train to the Australian people, who are now demanding answers about its failures to close the gaps despite receiving approximately $40 billion a year in funding. Minister, if your government is committed to closing the gaps and considering the Prime Minister has promised more accountability, why did Labor vote down a motion for an audit of this industry when evidence has been presented for years that indicates that corruption and misappropriation of funds is occurring? (Time expired) 14:34 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator. I don't agree with the question, the assertions in the question or some of the phrases used. I don't have the brief that tells me about this, but my recollection is that there was an Audit Office report that the government is responding to. From what Senator Gallagher said yesterday, I think the relevant government agency has accepted seven recommendations—or it might be more—which, you are right, uncovered some problems in the management of those programs. I would make the point that that was under the previous government. This government is focused on working through what was demonstrated during that audit and ensuring the recommendations of that audit are implemented. I think all of us want to make sure that the funding gets where it is needed and starts to shift the dial, because none of us want to live in a country with this much difference between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. (Time expired) Aviation Industry 53 14:35 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Senator Watt. The Senate select committee inquiry into bilateral air service agreements heard that the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts provided a brief to the Minister for Transport on 9 January seeking approval for a negotiating mandate for additional Qatar Airways flights. Later in January, the Virgin CEO met with the minister, who said that she expected to approve negotiations within the next couple of weeks but was also speaking to then Qantas CEO Alan Joyce who was 'not happy'. Then there were six months with no feedback to the department until the minister decided to ignore departmental advice and reject the Qatar application in July. Minister, what role did pressure from Mr Alan Joyce play in the ministerial rejection of her department's advice? 14:36 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Chandler. The minister has repeatedly made clear throughout this entire debate that her actions were only ever based on one factor, and that was the national interest of Australia. Throughout this debate, the opposition has repeatedly asserted that Mr Alan Joyce—as opposed to Mr Barnaby Joyce; another Joyce with an interest in aviation—has exerted some sort of influence over this decision. But I also note that the opposition has never been able to provide one skerrick of evidence to back up that assertion. I saw through the referendum campaign that, at one point, Mr Dutton was claiming that Mr Joyce had influenced the Prime Minister's decision about the Voice—again, no evidence; just going around making assertions. I would invite the opposition to provide just one skerrick of evidence to back up the assertions that it has been making now for weeks. I think it is quite telling that in a debate that has been going on for probably the best part of three months, the opposition has not been able to provide any evidence to back up that assertion. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Birmingham? Senator Birmingham H6X To respond to the minister's invitation, did Minister King speak with Mr Joyce— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, that is not a point of order. Minister Watt, please continue. Senator WATT 245759 It's nice to hear from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate for a change. We don't really hear a lot from him these days. As I say, the opposition has never been able to provide a skerrick of evidence to back up the assertion that it makes. It has been engaged in a campaign of smear against Minister King for the best part of three months without any evidence to back up its claims. I stand behind what Minister King has said, which is that the government's actions were at all times based on our decision as to the national interest, just as previous decisions made by former coalition transport ministers, such as Michael McCormack, to stop Qatar from having extra flights. I don't remember the opposition having any concerns about that; it is only when it's a Labor decision. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Chandler, a first supplementary? 14:38 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government has refused to outline who she spoke to prior to making her decision on the application for additional Qatar Airways flights and refused to confirm her conversations with Mr Joyce. Can the minister confirm that the only stakeholder Minister King spoke with before changing her mind and rejecting departmental advice was Mr Alan Joyce? 14:39 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, Senator Chandler, you can't just make up evidence by coming and making assertions. The implications— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. I will come to you, Senator Birmingham, but I am asking senators, particularly on my left, to stop the very loud interjections. Senator Birmingham? Senator Birmingham H6X On a point of order, the minister just accused Senator Chandler of 'making up evidence'. Senator Chandler's question is referring directly to evidence to a Senate committee. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, that isn't a point— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Birmingham, that is a debating point. It's not a point of order. Please resume your seat. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, I will certainly take advice, but I don't think that fits the gamut of points of order. As I said, that is a debating point, which of course senators are free to explore during the debate to take note of answers. Senator WATT 245759 As I say, this entire campaign has been based on a complete lack of evidence. The minister has already said publicly that she speaks to the CEOs of major airlines regularly and that she knew exactly what their opinions were on the Qatar decision. She has said that she spoke to the Qantas CEO, just as she spoke to the Virgin CEO, and that she certainly knew their positions before those consultations. I'm afraid that you don't get to make a case by simply asking questions that don't have a factual basis in this desperate search for evidence to back up the assertions that you've been making for the last three months. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Chandler, your second supplementary? 14:41 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania The Albanese government and Qantas have made seats to and from Australia hard to access and expensive. Will the Albanese government continue its protection racket of Qantas by seeking to block attempts in this Senate to hear from the Prime Minister's friend Alan Joyce and Transport Minister King on what role Mr Joyce played in denying Australian travellers additional competition for flights to Europe? 14:42 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland To the extent that this question relates to Minister King's decision to not attend the Senate inquiry—as Senator Chandler, Senator McKenzie and every other member of this Senate well know—House of Representatives members or ministers are not required to attend Senate inquiries. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WATT 245759 Did Peter Dutton attend a Senate inquiry? Who's the current Leader of the Opposition? Peter Dutton never did that. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my left! Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Order across the chamber! Firstly, Minister Watt, I would ask you to direct your comments through me. Secondly, when referring to those in the other place, please use their correct titles. Senator WATT 245759 I'm pleased that it's taken the best part of 18 months for the opposition to finally embrace the words 'Scott Morrison', words that until now—or 'Mr Morrison'—had not been uttered by a single member of the opposition. Now they're clinging to him as a life raft for this baseless set of accusations that they've been making for the last three months. So, welcome back, Mr Morrison. You are now officially a member of the Liberal Party again. But, as I say, the opposition well knows that the custom is that House of Reps members do not attend Senate inquiries and nor will Minister King. (Time expired) Elections 54 14:43 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania My question is for the Special Minister of State, Senator Farrell. The last election saw the biggest drop in votes for candidates from the major parties in our nation's history. More and more Australians are voting for independents like Senator Tyrrell and me. Australians are voting for independents because they know our loyalty is to the people who put us here—it is not to big corporate donors and it is not to unions. We work only for our people. Minister, you publicly stated in June this year: The Australian electoral system shouldn't be just open to people with lots of money. What is your government planning to do to, as you have stated, 'ensure that combination of transparency so that ordinary people can run campaigns'? 14:44 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Lambie for her question. The process that we have set in place is the one that occurs after every election. The issue of electoral reform is referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. I have made submissions to that committee. They have put down, or released, an interim report, and we are now in the process of obviously taking further submissions. I welcome any submission from the Jacqui Lambie Network to that committee process. The objective, of course, is the objective that Labor set out before the last election, which is to improve transparency and accountability in our electoral system. Nobody is suggesting at any point that this would make it more difficult for people like yourself to get elected. But when you have seen in the last two elections that one individual has spent over $200 million on the electoral system, I say this parliament has to review the way in which our electoral laws work so that it is not simply rich people with vast amounts of money who can get themselves elected. With all due respect, Senator Lambie, you are not in that situation. I will, at some point— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, a first supplementary? 14:46 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Media outlets are reporting that you have done a deal with Peter Dutton to give major parties even more public funding during tough times, a dirty deal that would entrench the major parties and make it harder for Australians to vote for ordinary people at federal elections. Will you confirm that you have already cut a deal with Peter Dutton to raise the amount of taxpayer money that goes to political candidates? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, before I call the minister, I remind you, when referring to those in the other place to use their correct titles. 14:47 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Lambie for her supplementary question. No. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, a second supplementary? 14:47 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania In the state of Victoria, when Labor and the Liberals did a deal on election funding, they gave themselves exemptions for their own slushy funds, funds like Labour Holdings and the Cormac Foundation. It seems Labor is good at talking the talk but not walking the walk. Will the minister rule out exempting slush funds or will you admit here today that your deal with the opposition leader is a cynical attempt to stop ordinary people, instead of career politicians, from being elected to parliament? 14:48 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Thank you, Senator Lambie. You obviously wrote that second supplementary question before you listened to my answer in the first supplementary question. But I thought I made it very directly clear that I don't have any agreement with Mr Dutton about electoral reform. I have explained to you what the process is, and the process is the same process that goes on after every election. We review the processes of the previous election. We work out ways in which we can improve our electoral process. The PRESIDENT 112096   Senator Lambie., on a point of order? Senator Lambie 250026 I just wanted to know whether the minister will rule out exempting slush funds. That was the question. Are you ruling out exempting slush funds? The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Lambie. The minister is being relevant to your question. Minister, please continue. Senator FARRELL I0N I was directly answering the question you asked me, Senator Lambie, and I was pointing out— (Time expired) Employment 55 14:49 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, Senator Farrell. Following the Jobs and Skills Summit last year, the Albanese government announced several measures in the social services portfolio to reduce barriers to employment and support inclusion. This includes a temporary work bonus measure. Can the minister please outline any action the government has taken to build on this temporary measure? 14:49 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Thank you, Senator Polley. I know you have a great interest in this area. It must be my day for questions from Tasmanians! Honourable senators interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N No, that was yesterday! At last year's Jobs and Skills Summit, promoting social inclusion and reducing barriers to work was a key feature of the government's agenda. This was demonstrated through our government's decision to temporarily boost the pension work bonus, allowing more aged pensioners and veterans to earn and work more before their pension is reduced. Senator FARRELL I0N I know you don't like these provisions, Senator Smith; I know you don't like them. But we're doing it. The employment white paper handed down in September, developed following the Jobs and Skills Summit, laid out a road map for permanent steps the government could take to continue this important work. Today my very good friend the Minister for Social Services, who's doing a terrific job, introduced legislation to the House that will, from 1 January 2024, provide all new entrants over age pension age and eligible veterans with a $4,000 work bonus income bank starting balance and will permanently retain the maximum income bank balance cap of $11,800 for all pensioners. These changes will mean that eligible pensioners can choose to take up more work if they choose to do so without their pensions being impacted. The government's initiative has been welcomed by stakeholders who represent older Australians, including the Council on the Ageing CEO, Patricia Sparrow, who has called these changes 'a great step forward'. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Polley, first supplementary? 14:51 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania As well as supporting older Australians, can the minister outline additional ways the Albanese government is incentivising other Australians on income support to take up work? 14:52 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Polley for her first supplementary question. We are delivering on our government's commitment to double the income nil rate period to 24 weeks and extend access to those entering full-time work. This means that Australians on income support who re-enter the workforce will be able to stay in the system longer and keep other benefits like the concession card, the childcare subsidies and the supplementary payments. These changes will reduce the need to reapply for income support if a new job doesn't work out, particularly short-term and casual work. These changes will support more Australians to take up employment opportunities if they wish to do so, but only if they wish to do so. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Polley, second supplementary? 14:53 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania How will these measures support income support recipients' transition to work and sit alongside other government changes? 14:53 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Polley for her second supplementary question. The measures introduced today will complement the other vital work our government is doing to support Australians on income support. This includes additional cost-of-living relief going to income support recipients who are doing it tough, including increases to Commonwealth rent assistance and the expansion of eligibility for parenting payments for singles. Since 20 September, these measures have put more money into the pockets of Australians doing it the toughest. This is on top of vital cost-of-living relief through the energy bill relief, cheaper medicines and, of course, the tripling of the Medicare bulk-billing incentive. Labor is committed to standing up for Australians— (Time expired) Cost of Living 56 14:54 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. In minutes released yesterday from the Reserve Bank's 3 October meeting, the RBA warned: 'Some further tightening of policy may be required should inflation prove more persistent than expected.' With the possibility of a further rate rise on top of rates already at their highest since April 2012, will the Albanese Labor government take full responsibility should there be another increase in interest rates? 14:55 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you to Senator Kovacic. I would make the point that obviously we are deeply concerned about inflation. You would have heard the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Finance and others being very clear about why the inflation challenge is the primary focus of our government and why we are seeking to roll out cost-of-living relief in a way that doesn't add to inflation. Inflation certainly is more persistent around the world than we would like. We recognise that inflation is moderating in our economy, but obviously we are not immune to the global trends. I would make the obvious political point, in response to the obvious political question, that the decisions of the Reserve Bank are decisions of the Reserve Bank. It is independent and it makes its own decisions. What we can do in government is to continue to invest in the future to address inflation and to seek to make progress on those things where we are able to. There is some welcome progress—not as much as we all would want, but there is welcome progress. We know that quarterly inflation peaked in the March quarter of last year, before the election. We also have the first surplus in 15 years, because of our responsible economic management. There was a $100 billion turnaround which resulted in a $22.1 billion surplus for the last financial year as compared with forecasts inherited from the former government. It's the biggest nominal budget improvement in Australia's history. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister. Senator Kovacic, first supplementary? 14:57 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales The RBA also 'noted that the rise in retail petrol prices would continue to underpin inflation over coming months and could influence households' inflation expectations'. Can you outline specifically what your plan is for Australians who may soon be unable to pay their mortgage? 14:57 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I will first make a point in relation to petrol—and I think I had this question yesterday. Petrol prices here in Australia are primarily driven by the global market and by the Australian exchange rate. That was the case under your government—although obviously you came after the election, Senator. But that is the case under governments of both political persuasions. With that response, I want to make sure that I'm very clear that we understand how difficult the higher petrol prices are for families, particularly those for whom long commutes are a necessity. I would also say that we have asked the ACCC to regularly monitor and analyse fuel prices. Again, that analysis confirms that the international benchmark price and the value of the Australian dollar are the primary drivers of— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Kovacic, second supplementary? 14:58 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales Prior to the election, the Prime Minister promised Australians cheaper mortgages, along with cheaper fuel, a $275 cut to power bills and real wages growth. Instead, under Labor this cost-of-living crisis has gone from bad to worse. When will the Albanese government take full responsibility and deliver a real plan to reduce the cost of living, just as the Prime Minister promised that he would? 14:58 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Let me identify or outline for the chamber the aspects of the government's $23 billion cost-of-living relief for Australians. First, electricity bill relief, opposed by you; second, cheaper child care, opposed by you; increased rent assistance—did they back that in or did they oppose that too? Government senators: No. Senator WONG 00AOU More Medicare bulk-billing? Government senators: No. Senator WONG 00AOU Again, no. Cheaper medicines? Government senators: No. Senator WONG 00AOU Again. Boosting income support payments? Government senators: No. Senator WONG 00AOU Fee-free TAFE? Government senators: No. Senator WONG 00AOU Building more affordable homes, expanding paid parental leave and getting wages moving again—all of those are the plan of this Labor government. It is a cost-of-living plan that doesn't add to inflation, and most, if not all, of it is opposed by you. Your only response has always been, 'Let's keep wages low.' That's been fundamental to the Liberals' economic plan for years. A deliberate design feature of the Australian economy was low wages. We take a different approach and we always will. (Time expired) Senator Wong 00AOU I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 57 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Aviation Industry 57 15:00 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (Senator Watt) to questions without notice asked by Senator Chandler today. At their heart, the questions asked by Senator Chandler of this government come down to two things. The first is transparency and the second is the cost of living. What we saw with the answers that were given by the minister in response to the questions by Senator Chandler was that this government has no interest in transparency. Before the last election, the Leader of the Labor Party promised to lead the most transparent government ever. Well, guess what! That was another broken promise by Labor, because they don't lead the most transparent government ever. In fact, this Labor government is the least transparent government ever. The answers that were given today by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government really shone a light on the disdain and arrogance and the distasteful approach that the Labor executive takes to being accountable and transparent. The first question was a very simple one: what role did pressure from Mr Alan Joyce play in the ministerial rejection of the department's advice? This won't surprise those who, due to misfortune, may be listening to this at home, but the minister did not answer that question. Indeed, he attempted to say that the questions by the opposition and the Senate inquiry are a smear campaign against the minister. It is not a smear campaign for members of this chamber to ask questions of the executive. At their core, those questions are about accountability. What it shows to me is that the government has something to hide in relation to this decision-making. The government is just a little bit too defensive about its relationship with Qantas and Mr Alan Joyce. I would like to say, as someone who flies Qantas a lot, that I think Qantas has thousands of very good Australians who work for it and ensure that millions of Australians get from A to B. But what Qantas isn't doing—and this goes to the second part of the questions that Senator Chandler put to the minister—goes to the cost of living. This country is in a cost-of-living crisis. If you want to go onto qantas.com or the websites of other airlines, you might want to take some heart medication before you open up your internet browser, because flights cost a lot. They cost a hell of a lot in regional Queensland. If you want to fly overseas, you might look at trying to remortgage your house. That is the issue here. Qantas effectively wants to run a cartel in relation to international flights. What Qatar wanted to do was to have more flights come to Australia. This is very basic economics. It's supply and demand. If there is more supply of international flights coming to Australia and leaving from Australia, it means prices will go down. But Qantas doesn't want prices to go down. Qantas wants prices to go up. That is why the opposition, through the advocacy of the Liberals and Nationals who sit in this chamber, want to get to the nut of why and how the minister made this decision. What information did the minister rely upon? And why won't the minister release that information? Now, it may be there is nothing to hide. But I think that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and there is a murkiness over the government's cohabitation with Qantas, particularly in relation to recent events. I call upon the government to treat the Australian people with respect. 15:06 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I rise to respond to those comments and to address the answer from Minister Watt to Senator Chandler. Obviously this issue has been the subject of debate and a Senate inquiry, and it has been referred to by those opposite. Our Senate colleagues participated in that Senate inquiry, and the department appeared, and there was evidence given, in the normal course of practice. These are the precedents that we set. It is not within the precedents of the Senate to expect House ministers to appear at those Senate inquiries. But those opposite have decided that there is a new level of transparency and accountability that they want to seek, for the purpose of creating a politically motivated attack. What we are seeking to do is to provide the information that has been asked of us and to make sure that we can continue to act in the national interest. I know those opposite haven't yet said whether they support the national interest and why they wouldn't, but that seems to be an implication from the arguments they are making. In regard to the Senate inquiry—the subject of the comments made by the previous senator—I'd just draw the attention of people in the community to the dissenting report from Labor senators in response to that inquiry. The dissenting report raised significant concerns about the conduct of the inquiry and the clear political basis of and inaccuracies in the majority report. As to the way these Senate inquiries work: obviously, the majority is able to provide a report, but it still can be fact-checked, and this one was—it was fact-checked by our Senate colleagues who provided a dissenting report. What was clear from that was that the Liberal and National parties really did have no regard for the complexity of the issue at hand and ignored the full evidence presented to the committee. What we are talking about when we talk about the complexity of this issue is the very delicate and intricate nature of our aviation sector here in Australia; how it interacts with international markets; how it's influenced by different factors internationally; and how important it is that we do have a strong aviation sector here in Australia so that we can have flights to places like those in regional Queensland, where I live, sustainably continued, and have access to those places. These things were essentially ignored by the majority report and by the Liberal and National senators. The dissenting report said: The Committee also heard evidence—including from Marque Lawyers and several trade union groups—about concerns going back many years over Qatar Airways' ability to act as good corporate citizens. That's some of the evidence that was ignored by the committee and that's some of the evidence that hasn't been referred to in the taking note of answers today. I encourage members to really consider the evidence that has been given by people who understand the aviation sector a lot better, I would say, than those opposite. When it comes to transparency and accountability, one thing that won't be happening in this Senate any time soon is any member of this government taking lectures about transparency and accountability from members of the Liberal and National parties after 10 years of what essentially became a degraded government unable to provide accountability, unable to be transparent, hiding reports, refusing to publish certain things and not providing documents to Senate inquiries. The list goes on in terms of responses to the sports rorts inquiry, car park rorts and all these issues that we sought information on through the usual practices in the chamber and were refused that information. We are not going to take lectures from people who continue to defend the former Prime Minister, who had multiple ministries. When it comes to transparency and accountability, fish rots from the top, and these guys continue to defend a former prime minister who not only deceived this chamber but also deceived the Australian public by signing up to multiple ministries. Our ministers will not be taking lectures on transparency and accountability and what is in the national interest by members of the Liberal Party who continue to defend sports rorts, car park rorts or the multiple ministries of former Prime Minister Scott Morrison. What we will do is continue to act in the national interest. 15:11 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Senator Green, representing the government in the Senate this afternoon, is very, very wrong. Senator Green has characterised this as a politically motivated attack on the government. That is very wrong. This is a consumer motivated attack on the government. This is a competition motivated attack on the government. Senator Green says that the government will not be held to lectures by us on accountability and transparency. In August last year, the leader of the government, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, said that his government would be one characterised by transparency and accountability and not secrecy—not a lecture from us; a commitment, a mandate, made by the leader of the Labor Party, the Prime Minister of this country. With the Qatar decision, the decision made by Minister King on behalf of the government to deny increased access to Qatar Airlines—which would deliver freight benefits, aviation benefits, consumer benefits and competition benefits—they are denying the opportunity for proper transparency and proper scrutiny of that decision. Minister Watt is incorrect as is Senator Green when they say that there is no precedence for House ministers coming before Senate committees. There absolutely is. The former Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, in 2014, when he was a minister in the former government, came before a Senate committee. So they are prepared to tell half-truths, even non-truths, in their defence of Minister King, who will not come before the Senate and provide an explanation about who exactly it was that influenced her decision and exactly what the components and characteristics of the national interest are. The government says that the decision to deny greater consumer benefits, greater competition and better freight opportunities in our country through Qatar was made in the national interest. Well, please, Minister King, explain to us exactly what the characteristics and components of the national interest are—because coalition senators, crossbench senators and, I have to say, I think the entire Australian public believes that the decision was made not in the national interest but in Qantas's interest. It is often said in Canberra that secretaries of departments and senior bureaucrats capture their ministers. I suggest that the former CEO of Qantas captured the board of Qantas and the board is as responsible for the decisions and the situation that our national carrier now finds itself. Let's just think about this. Everyone is watching Qantas. The eight ACCC is now watching Qantas, having filed in the Federal Court a claim that Qantas was selling tickets on flights that were no longer scheduled to fly. Really? Wow, who thinks they can get away with that sort of behaviour? In addition to that, the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors has said that it is now watching Qantas, the Qantas CEO and its board with regard to executive remuneration. Of course, every Australian consumer who is given a lack of opportunity and a lack of aviation choices is watching Qantas because they can't believe the prices and they can't believe the falling levels of service. This is a serious issue. On the weekend Australians said they'll make up their own minds and hold the government accountable, and we've seen the government trying to make up for lost ground by now trying to talk about the cost of living and now trying to explain what it's doing. Well, this is a big black mark against the government. Minister King and the former Qantas CEO owe it to Qantas and to Australian air travellers to come and explain themselves. The spirit of Australia has unfortunately got drunk on influence and power in Canberra, and Australian consumers deserve an explanation. The government in question time failed to provide a proper, thorough, comprehensive defence as to why the Qantas CEO shouldn't attend and why Minister King shouldn't come before the Senate. 15:16 Senator WHITE IWK Victoria For 25 years I've represented airline workers, and for 25 years I watched successive coalition governments ignore workers who didn't work at Qantas. In 2001 when Ansett collapsed, the then Howard government ignored the loss of jobs of those Ansett workers—some might say in favour of Qantas. In 2020 it happened again. When Virgin was about to be put into administration, the then government turned its back on those Virgin workers and did absolutely nothing to assist Virgin in its recovery. Again, those Virgin workers absolutely thought that the coalition government was benefiting Qantas workers over Virgin. Then we also look, though, at what happened with the sacking of the 1,700 transport workers and what the then coalition government did about that. They sat back and supported an illegal act by Qantas. So throwing at this government that we are somehow captive of Qantas is a bit akin to the pot calling the kettle black, as far as I can see, because the long history that I have witnessed first hand has seen successive coalition governments favouring the interests of Qantas—not Qantas workers but Qantas—over other airlines in this country. So it's a bit rich, I think, to make those accusations because, when I look at the history, it just doesn't support those sorts of accusations. I was fortunate enough to sit on the inquiry into air services. Again, sometimes a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but I listened to a range of evidence about what happened with those air services agreements and the history of how air services agreements have been negotiated. They are a valuable commodity for a country. You have to look at how you deal with them, who flies here and what negotiations you have with not only governments but also the airlines of those governments, and many, many governments across this world take a different view of how they deal with them. As a country, they look at their national interest, and what they weigh up can be different. Let's talk about Canada. Canada absolutely refused to do air services agreements with Qatar. Is that in the report? No. Does it mention how Canada looked at its national interests! Let's talk about what the US does. The US will not allow any non-US owned airline to flight domestically. In Australia, what do we do? Foreign carriers can fly. They do not have to be Australian owned. The only one that has to be 51 per cent Australian owned because of the Qantas sale ad is Qantas, but every other airline that flies domestically here—let's talk Rex Airlines who is wholly owned by a Singaporean company—can fly wherever they like and they're foreign-owned! That doesn't get a mention at all in this report. When you weigh up the national interest, you weigh up a range of different things—and that is what this minister has done—what was failed to be appreciated is that the national interest is complex, it can change from time to time and it is absolutely influenced by what is going on around us, and that just did not come out in the Senate inquiry. Sorry! There was evidence about it, but it was ignored. Hence, the dissenting report that I was proud to support and why I speak on this 'take note'. Air services agreements are a complex issue, and it was not appreciated. 15:21 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales I take note of Senator White's comment that this agreement was a complex set of arrangements. What isn't complex is transparency. The definition of transparency is a: situation in which business and financial activities are done in an open way without secrets, so that people can trust that they are fair and honest. So, what's the situation that we have? Mr Joyce was unable to attend public hearings due to being overseas. The minister has continued to be evasive and unwilling to cooperate with the inquiry or to explain her decisions. In fact, Minister King has failed to formally respond to the committee's request for her to appear, despite telling the media that she would front up. That's not in line with transparency. It's up to Labor and the Greens now to support the committee's proposal to extend the select committee and ensure that Mr Joyce turns up and gives evidence before this inquiry. Or, will Labor continue its protection racket over Qantas and Mr Joyce by seeking to hide what discussions were held between the former CEO and senior government ministers and staff at the cost of Australia's travelling public during a cost-of-living crisis? It's all from a government that has continued to promise to ease cost-of-living pressures but has continued to fail to deliver. Will Labor submit Mr Joyce to the same scrutiny that Minister King seeks to avoid? During question time I noted that Senator Watt indicated that there hadn't been a skerrick of evidence for the questioning in relation to what actually happened between Qantas and senior government ministers. That's because there hasn't been a skerrick of transparency. No information has come forward. Only former Qantas CEO Mr Alan Joyce, the Prime Minister and the transport minister Catherine King can answer significant questions about the reasons why key aviation decisions were made, including the decision to reject the Qatar Airways application and to discontinue domestic airline monitoring by the ACCC. Question agreed to. Australian Constitution 60 15:24 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to a question without notice asked by Senator Hanson today relating to the Australian Constitution. On election night the Prime Minister said: 'It is not a 'yes' or a 'no' vote. We are all Australians.' Hence I asked, 'Why have we got race based policies?' The minister basically answered: 'There's a lot of hurt and pain out there. Children are actually dying before they are one year of age.' We actually know all of that. My question was basically about an individual needs basis. About 30 per cent of Australians are living in poverty and are struggling. They don't have the advantage of having their kids' school fees paid or sent to boarding schools or of having their health costs funded by taxpayers. We now know that about $40 billion is paid into what I call the Aboriginal industry. Australians want to help people. There's no question about that whatsoever. But when we have no definition of aboriginality and a lot of people claiming to be Aboriginal who are not Aboriginal to get this funding, it's a bit rich. When people need a helping hand it should be on an individual needs basis because the majority of Aboriginals—80 per cent—live in the cities and not in rural and regional areas. Another question I asked was why they refused to have a royal commission. The answer was: you just can't because one member of this parliament asks for a royal commission. I have to clarify that. The government took to a referendum that they wanted an advisory body to actually inform the government. It wasn't an advisory body. Twenty-six senators in this place—elected members of this parliament—voted for a royal commission. It wasn't one person; it was 26. That was disregarded. Also we do need an audit of where the money has gone. Australians want that audit done. Question agreed to. Federal Elections 61 15:26 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Special Minister of State (Senator Farrell) to a question without notice asked by Senator Lambie today relating to the federal election. Today I asked the Special Minister of State, Minister Farrell, about his plans to reform our election funding. On 20 June this year, Minister Farrell told Michele Grattan: The Australian electoral system shouldn't be just open to people with lots of money. I agree with him on that. Tasmanians know that the Jacqui Lambie Network don't take big donations from big corporates or unions. Our average donation is 25 bucks. Senator Tyrrell and I do it the old-fashioned way. We chuck on our jeans and boots and we talk to Tasmanians. We go and earn it. That's how we do it. The joint standing committee's report into Australian election funding made 15 recommendations. Some of them are good—like reducing the cap on disclosable donations from $15,200 to $1,000. The minister is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of Australians. He knows damn well that putting a cap on donations won't really hurt the major parties. In the same interview Minister Farrell said that he wants a level playing field. The minister already knows that it's not a level playing field and it is doing nothing about the main funnel for dark money to the major parties. How do they do this? They set up different entities. Let's call them dark money hubs because that's exactly what they are. These dark money hubs get cash from big donors and then funnel that money back to the parties. The coalition has 68 associated entities or dark money hubs. This is to their 15 federal and state branches. The coalition can multiply donations up to the threshold 83 times. A family group could have given $17.8 million over the three years leading up to the last federal election and nobody would ever know. By the way, business membership forums, fundraising dinners and events are not treated as donations that have to be disclosed to the Australian public. Wait. It gets worse. The red and blue teams both have associated business arms that charge large annual membership fees in exchange for special policy briefings. That's right; you can buy a meeting with the minister. That's how it works. Membership fees to the Liberal Australian Business Network and the Labor Business Forum are split into three groups. You can get yourself silver membership for $25,000, gold membership for $55,000 and the whole kit and caboodle, platinum membership, for $110,000. Putting a cap on election campaign funding will do nothing to bring these dark hubs into the light. The minister and this government will tell you they care about transparency and electoral reform. It's pretty clear to me that they do not. All they care about is keeping themselves in power and keeping out the Independents who will hold them to account. Australians, this is a really big problem. There will be a lot more of this coming out. It's absolutely filthy how the major parties work. This is what we are up against. They will do everything in their power. In the future they will do everything that they can to get rid of Independents and micro parties. I say this to you: start praying in church—because I can assure you that the Australian people are right on to you, and this situation is not going away. Keep feeding your own funnel. Question agreed to. Israel 62 15:29 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked by Senator Waters relating to Israel and Gaza. The recent attacks by Hamas on Israeli citizens were utterly horrific, and the Australian Greens condemn them fully and full-throatedly, and we have repeatedly condemned them fully and full-throatedly, as has the Australian government, quite rightly. But, unlike the Australian government, the Australian Greens have also condemned the war crimes perpetrated by the state of Israel in Gaza, including the ongoing carpet bombing of Palestinian citizens. The state of Israel is not acting in self-defence. The war on Gaza and the invasion of Gaza by the state of Israel need to end. One thing I cannot comprehend is how this morning the overwhelming majority of this Senate, including ALP and opposition senators, could vote for a motion that says, 'We stand for Israel,' while what is going on in Gaza right now is happening. It is unconscionable that the Senate would vote to stand with Israel while innocent Palestinians are being slaughtered by the state of Israel. Senator Wong said today that words matter, and words do matter, but it's both the words that are said and the words that are not said that matter. The Australian government must condemn what Israel is doing in Gaza, just as it rightly condemned what Hamas did to Israeli citizens earlier. Question agreed to. NOTICES 62 NOTICES Presentation 62 15:32 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I give notice in general terms under standing order 76(6) of my intention to give two notices of motion for the next day of sitting, relating to the 2024 sitting calendar and estimates hearings. Presentation 62 15:32 Senator WHITE IWK Victoria On behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I give notice of my intention, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2, for 12 sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the Insurance Exemption Determination No. 1 2023, and business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2, for five sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the National Anti-Corruption Commission Regulations 2023. Presentation 62 COMMITTEES 65 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 65 15:33 The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. BUSINESS 65 BUSINESS Rearrangement 65 15:34 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I seek leave to amend government business notice No. 1, standing in the name of Senator Gallagher, before seeking to have the motion taken as a formal motion. Leave granted. Senator WONG 00AOU I move the motion as amended: That— (1) on Wednesday, 18 October 2023: (a) the hours of meeting be 9 am till adjournment and the routine of business from 6 pm the conclusion of the consideration of proposals under standing order 75 be consideration of the following bills only: Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023 Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023, National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023, and National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 (b) the Senate adjourn without debate following the conclusion of the bills or at 8.30 pm, whichever is the earlier; and (2) on Thursday, 19 October 2023: (a) the hours of meeting be 9 am till adjournment and the routine of business from 12.15 pm be consideration of the following bills only: Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023 Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023, National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023, and National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 (b) if consideration of the bills has not concluded by 1.30 pm, the question on all remaining stages of the bills be put, and (c) paragraph (2)(b) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142. 15:34 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I seek leave to make a short statement, for one minute. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X I thank the Senate. I acknowledge the amendments circulated by Senator Wong. Of course, this still provides for yet another guillotine of legislation by the Albanese Labor government, but it provides for slightly longer consideration the legislation than had been proposed in the government's initial guillotine proposal. I acknowledge and thank the government for at least providing a little bit more time. The Senate shouldn't have to think governments for providing a little bit more time. The Senate should be treated with the respect of allowing proper consideration of legislation. This little bit more time is a function of the fact that my colleague Senator Cash, working with crossbenchers, has been pushing to try to ensure there is extra time for consideration of these bills. We're going to get that extra time to some degree. That is a welcome addition, albeit this government, rather than seeking to ram through its legislation by guillotine, which it used to criticise from opposition, ought to properly schedule its business. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 66 COMMITTEES Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, Environment and Communications References Committee 66 Reference 66 15:36 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I, and also at the request of Senator McDonald, move: That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 10 March 2024: The Albanese Government's decision in mid-2022 to adopt a series of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Committee policy directives in relation to the Great Barrier Reef and other parts of regional Queensland, with particular reference to: (a) specific practical information, including any detailed scientific evidence, on which the decision was based; (b) impracticality of, and risks associated with, a number of the policies devised by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee; (c) accusations that the Prime Minister and other relevant federal ministers have not consulted, or even met, with a multitude of individuals and business who are adversely impacted by the decision; (d) the many detrimental ramifications of this lack of consultation; (e) the breadth of the economic and social damage that is already being, and will continue to be, caused by this decision, including to farmers, graziers, commercial fishers, a host of small business operators and their respective families; (f) subsequent lack of information, and delays—and accompanying uncertainty and anxiety—in relation to any compensation that might be provided as a consequence of the decision; and (g) any other related matters. 15:36 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. 15:36 Senator 231199 Tasmania URQUHART (—) (): by leave—At the request of Senator Grogan, I move: Omit "Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee", substitute "Environment and Communications References Committee". Question agreed to. 15:37 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Yes, the leave was granted. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 I thank Senators Duniam and McDonald for moving this motion, but the government will not be supporting it, because at its base the motion is based on incorrect assumptions and false premises. We welcome scrutiny of our policies. We've tabled correspondence from the minister on this topic numerous times. The motion refers to risks and potential economic damage. Our government would gladly examine the fact that the Liberals and Nationals put the reef at risk for years through their climate denialism. Those opposite are economic and environmental vandals who jeopardise not only the health of the reef but the 64,000 jobs that rely on the healthy reef and the $6.4 billion it brings to the Queensland economy. Of course our government continues to work with a range of stakeholders to secure the future of the reef. Only Labor governments in Australia and Queensland will protect the reef and the Queensland jobs that go with it. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that Senate notice of motion No. 3 standing in the names of Senator Duniam and Senator McDonald as amended by Senator Urquhart on behalf of Senator Grogan be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [15:42]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 32 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. 34 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Commonwealth Bilateral Air Service Agreements Select Committee 68 Appointment 68 15:45 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I move: That— (a) the Select Committee on Commonwealth Bilateral Air Service Agreements, appointed by resolution of the Senate on 5 September 2023, as amended on 7 September 2023, be reappointed on the same terms, except as otherwise provided by this resolution, so that the committee may: (i) receive evidence at a public hearing from: (A) witnesses who were unavailable prior to the committee's original reporting date, including Mr Alan Joyce AC; and (B) government affairs representatives from Qantas, noting that Qantas' answers to questions on notice from senators were unsatisfactory; and (ii) report on any matters arising relevant to the committee's terms of reference; and (b) the committee or any subcommittee have the power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the select committee appointed on 5 September 2023; and (c) senators who were members or participating members of the previous select committee are appointed to the new committee; and (d) the committee report by 29 November 2023. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 346, standing in the name of Senator McKenzie, be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [15:46]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 31 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. 34 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 15:48 The 112096 PRESIDENT (): Senator McKenzie, I understand that makes notice of motion No. 347 redundant. Senator McKenzie 207825 No. Does it? The PRESIDENT 112096 You're asking for a minister to appear before a committee that you don't have, as I understand it. Senator McKenzie 207825 Got it. Thank you. DOCUMENTS 69 DOCUMENTS Attorney-General's Department 69 Order for the Production of Documents 69 15:49 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Cash, I move: That— (1) There be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney General, by no later than 14 days after the end of each month, an update of parole decisions by the Commonwealth Attorney-General, or their delegate. (2) Each monthly update must include: (a) the total number of parole applications decided during that month; and (b) the total number of parole applications granted during that month and, in relation to each application granted: (i) the state or territory in which the person was imprisoned, (ii) any previous grant of parole (if known), (iii) offence(s) committed, (iv) whether the grant of parole related to sexual assault, child abuse or child pornography offences, (v) whether the grant of parole related to terrorism offences, (vi) date of sentencing, (vii) duration of sentence given including: (A) length of any non-parole period, and (B) total duration of sentence, and (viii) whether the decision made to grant the parole was made by a departmental official or the Attorney-General, and (ix) if the decision was made by the Attorney-General, whether the decision followed the recommendation provided by the Department. (3) This order is of continuing effect. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 352 standing in the name of Senator Cash be agreed to.  

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

 31 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. 34 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 BUDGET 70 BUDGET Consideration by Estimates Committee 70 15:52 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania On behalf of Senator Chandler, I move: That the Senate requires the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee to schedule its supplementary estimates hearings to commence at 9 am and conclude at 11 pm, and if the committee concludes its consideration of items of expenditure it can adjourn earlier than 11 pm in accordance with the requirements of standing order 26(4). 15:52 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 The government opposes this motion, and it is disappointing that the opposition has brought it to the chamber instead of letting the committee deliberate independently as is the usual practice. The hours we work in this place, particularly during rounds of estimates, are often unfriendly to families. Where we can make these hours more family friendly without impeding the operations of the Senate, we should. The government is of the view that the committee's adopted program represents a positive opportunity to trial some small changes that may make a welcome difference. I commend the excellent Chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, Senator Ciccone, on this proposal, and I encourage senators to respect the decision-making of the committee and oppose this motion. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 353, standing in the name of Senator Chandler and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [15:54]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 33 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. 33 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 DOCUMENTS 71 DOCUMENTS Goods and Services Tax Revenue 71 Order for the Production of Documents 71 15:57 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania On behalf of Senator Dean Smith, I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that, in his response to order for the production of documents no. 307 relating to the distribution of Goods and Services Tax revenue, dated 10 October 2023, the Treasurer made a public interest immunity claim on the basis that it would disclose the deliberations of the Council on Federal Financial Relations and adversely affect Commonwealth-state relations; (b) rejects the public interest immunity claim made by the Treasurer, noting that: (i) when a claim of public interest immunity is made on the basis that it would adversely affect Commonwealth-state relations, the agreement of the States to disclose the information should be sought and they should be invited to give reasons for any objection, and (ii) no such agreement has been sought, nor has the Senate been advised of any objection from any state government; and (c) requires the order to be complied with by no later than midday on 7 November 2023. 15:57 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a one-minute statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator 39801 The government will not be supporting this motion. I can advise the Senate that Treasury consulted with the Board of Treasurers, who objected to the release on the grounds that it would prejudice Commonwealth-state relations. The government has complied with previous iterations of this motion and reiterates the public interest immunity on the grounds that it would prejudice relations between the Commonwealth and the states. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 355, standing in the name of Senator Dean Smith and moved by Senator Askew be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [15:59]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 44 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 22 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Farrell, D. E. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

Attorney-General's Department 72 Order for the Production of Documents 72 16:01 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by no later than midday on 1 November 2023: (a) the following details of all parole decisions in each month since January 2022 to present: (i) the total number of parole applications decided, (ii) the total number of parole applications granted, and the total number refused, and (iii) for each application that was decided: (A) the state or territory the application relates to, (B) the dates the decision was made, (C) if the decision made was to grant parole, whether the decision was made by a departmental official or the Attorney-General, and (D) if the decision was made by the Attorney-General, whether the decision followed the recommendation provided by the Department; (b) any briefings, reports, guidelines or other policy documents relating to the delegation of parole decisions by the Attorney-General from 1 January 2022 to date; and (c) once received by the Clerk or the President, documents returned and any correspondence responding to the order shall be deemed to have been presented to the Senate, and publication of the documents is authorised. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 358 standing in the name of Senator Shoebridge be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [16:06]
(The President—Senator Lines)

41 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKim, N. J. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 19 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Farrell, D. E. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 COMMITTEES 73 COMMITTEES Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 73 Reference 73 16:08 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Canavan, I seek leave to amend Senate notice of motion No.1. Leave granted. Senator ASKEW 281558 I move the motion as amended: That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 18 April 2024: (a) the expected costs and impacts, if red imported fire ants are able to spread across Australia, on human health, social amenity, agriculture, the environment, infrastructure and regional workers; (b) an assessment of the current and any proposed fire ant response plans for achieving the eradication of red imported fire ants; (c) an evaluation of funding provided for the current or any proposed fire ant response plans; (d) the effectiveness of eradication efforts and the spread of fire ants; (e) learnings of Varroa mite in managing red imported fire ants; and (f) any other related matters. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 74 COMMITTEES Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee 74 Reference 74 16:09 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I, and also on behalf of Senator Chandler, move: That the following matter be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by 7 December 2023: Efficacy of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade due diligence framework, with particular reference to: (a) whether the due-diligence framework used by Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is fit-for-purpose in determining the scope of stakeholders who can be engaged by the Government of Australia for the provision of aid to the citizens of Myanmar; and (b) any related matters. Question agreed to. BILLS 74 BILLS Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Expanding the Water Trigger) Bill 2023 74

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Expanding the Water Trigger) Bill 2023

First Reading 74 16:10 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I move: That the following bill be introduced: A bill for an Act to amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1989 and for related purposes. Question agreed to. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U I present the bill and move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 74 16:11 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill. Leave granted. Senator I0U I table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard and for related purposes. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— I rise today in favour of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Expanding the Water Trigger) Bill 2023, the Australian Greens' Bill which will expand the water trigger in our environment laws to ensure all proposed unconventional gas projects are assessed for their impacts on critical water resources. Water is life. Our rivers and waterways are critical to the survival of ecosystems, culture and communities. And yet, a loophole in our environment laws means fracking corporations have a license to drill without regard for our rivers or the voices of Traditional Owners. Currently, the Minister for Environment is only required to assess proposed coal seam gas projects for their water impact, while hydraulic fracturing projects remain exempt from this requirement despite their significant water impact. This Bill seeks to fix this failure of our environment laws and provide stronger protections for Australia's rivers, aquifers and wetlands and the communities that rely on them. This reform is urgent. In the Northern Territory, fracking companies are on the precipice of large-scale gas extraction. With fracking projects in the Beetaloo Basin expected to receive first gas production approvals imminently, it is critical that the Commonwealth Government have oversight and a trigger to consider protections for water by the end of this year. The Albanese Government has already made their commitment to an expanded water trigger clear in their Nature Positive Plan. However, if stalled beyond this year, this promise will be too little too late, especially with the NT Government poised to give billions of litres to fracking companies in the Beetaloo Basin for free. Their proposed water allocation plan for the region entirely overlooks impacts on and protections for environment and culture, putting communities and ecosystems in the region at risk. Many water experts have spoken out against this unsustainable and dangerous allocation of water. An expanded water trigger in our Federal environment laws will provide an urgently needed layer of protection for NT water, by ensuring rigorous assessment of potential impacts to waterways. Fracking uses enormous volumes of water and puts ground and surface water at risk of contamination. Without impact assessment, water resources may be limitlessly exploited and irreversibly damaged for projects that do nothing but put our climate at further risk. For every gas well, fracking companies would require millions of litres of groundwater, which the NT Government is willing to give them for free. The risk of damage to our waterways and climate would be irreversible. Contamination of water as a result of fracking is also a critical concern for communities in the region. Even in the exploration phase, we have already seen the negligence of fracking corporates who have little regard for the free water they've been handed. Tamboran Resources barely received a slap on the wrist for spraying contaminated water all over their site. Communities and workers alike have expressed concerns for how this action could have poisoned waterways, ecosystems and ultimately the health of the communities in the region. Fracking the Beetaloo will not only have immediate impacts on NT's environment, but ongoing impacts that will be felt long into the future. This climate bomb could increase emissions by up to 117Mt a year—up to 25% of Australia's annual emissions. As the climate crisis worsens, we need to be doing everything we can to protect our environment. This means not only protecting what water we still have, but also putting limitations on polluting industries that make the climate crisis worse. They cannot be allowed to freely exploit a resource that is critical to survival. Already, the impacts of climate change are being felt in the NT, with visible impacts on water resources in this generation. I want to thank the delegation of Traditional owners who visited Parliament earlier this year, to tell us about the impacts of fracking on their country. They said: "We know this planned gas fracking will make climate change worse. We know if this fracking goes ahead we may not be able to live on country like we have for thousands and thousands of years. We need your help to keep our culture, our water, our climate and our children's futures safe." Our water, our land, our climate is all inextricably linked. If we wait any longer to implement an expanded water trigger, fracking could result in irreversible over-extraction of water, compounded by worsening climate impacts in the region. This Bill does nothing more than implement commitments already made by the Albanese Government both at the election and in their Nature Positive Plan. The NT Government has also agreed to implement all the recommendations of the NT Fracking Inquiry conducted by Justice Pepper, one of which was an expanded water trigger. Considering the NT has now lifted their moratorium on fracking and the water trigger is still not in place, the Senate Inquiry into the Beetaloo Basin recommended its implementation by 31 December 2023—little more than two months away. With broad support across the Parliament, we must urgently act to pass this Bill and implement an expanded water trigger before commercial fracking gets the green light and irreversible damage is done. Now more than ever we need to be listening to First Nations voices when it comes to protecting our environment. This Bill is an opportunity to protect our rivers, aquifers and wetlands and the communities and culture they sustain. With the Government already committed to the reform now laid out in this Bill before the Senate, there is nothing standing in the way of the implementation of an expanded water trigger by the end of this year. The ball is in the Government's court, and we look forward to working cooperatively with them to ensure the urgent passage of this Bill. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Childhood Gender Transition Prohibition Bill 2023 75

Childhood Gender Transition Prohibition Bill 2023

First Reading 75 16:11 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia I, and also on behalf of Senators Babet, Canavan and Roberts, move: That the following bill be introduced: A bill for an Act to prevent gender transition mine is a biological sex and related purposes. Question agreed to. Senator ANTIC 269375 I present the bill and move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 75 16:13 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill. Leave granted. Senator ANTIC 269375 I table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— The Childhood Gender Transition Prohibition Bill 2023 will prohibit health practitioners from knowingly providing gender clinical interventions to a minor that are intended to transition the minor's biological sex as determined by the child's sex organs, chromosomes, and endogenous profiles, and by prohibiting the Commonwealth from entering into arrangements that involve expending funds in a way that provides or facilitates the provision of such interventions. The Bill seeks to implement Australia's obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child done at New York on 20 November 1989 and in particular Article 3 of the Convention which requires that "In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration" and Article 19(1) of the Convention which requires that "States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child." The Bill defines gender clinical interventions that are intended to transition a minor's biological sex to include performing a surgery that sterilises the minor, including castration, vasectomy, hysterectomy, oophorectomy, metoidioplasty, orchiectomy, penectomy, phalloplasty, vaginoplasty, or performing a mastectomy. It also includes providing, prescribing, administering, or dispensing prescription drugs that induce transient or permanent infertility, prescription drugs that suppress, block or delay normal puberty, supraphysiologic doses of testosterone to females, supraphysiologic doses of estrogen to males or removing any otherwise healthy or non-diseased body part or tissue. Despite their ceaseless rhetoric about transparency, mental health, and social justice, Labor and the Greens consistently fail to speak in support of some of the most vulnerable members of society—children and teenagers. Over the past decade or so there has been a drastic increase in the number of children and teenagers voicing confusion about their own gender dysphoria. As reported in The Daily Telegraph late last year, a Freedom of Information request revealed that: "There were 2067 young people attending public [gender] clinics in 2021 [in Australia], almost 10 times the number in 2014, when there were 211 children. The number of under 18s being prescribed puberty suppressing drugs shot up from five in 2014 to 624 in 2019…" This increase in the number of young people seeking such "treatment" is not isolated to Australia. The infamous Tavistock Centre's numbers of gender dysphoria treatments in under 18s increased "from 200 in 2011-12 to 2000 in 2016-17." Our medical establishment should be aiming to promote the connection, discipline, and stability that empowers young people to live flourishing lives. Instead, confused, and vulnerable young people, who today carry heavy burdens, are placed on the path of "transitioning" upon the slightest hint of confusion, and they are wrongly told by adults that it is the path to peace and fulfilment. Gender dysphoria is not an innate psychological condition—nobody is born in "the wrong body." These young people are confused boys and girls growing up in a confusing world. Gender dysphoria is a social phenomenon, a trend, and the Australian government should be investigating the causes of this trend and shutting down these so-called treatment options to really help these young people before they do irreversible damage to their bodies. American author Abigail Shrier, who has researched this topic extensively, has described the phenomena of teenaged girls embracing trans ideology as a "social contagion"—something done to fit in, belong to an in-group, and forge an identity for themselves. This makes sense given the very rapid rise of the trans phenomenon, and the sudden uptick in girls identifying as "trans." We're now starting to understand the harm being done by this movement through an alternative and growing movement of those who have been referred to as "detransitioners." These are people who were encouraged to pursue the path of puberty-suppressing drugs and even surgery to remove their breasts and/or genitalia only to realise after the fact that their gender did in fact accord with their biology. They now question why they were ever allowed, or encouraged, to pursue this path with little, if any, meaningful examination of their mental health, personal lives, family situations, and so on. Many of them describe feeling depressed beforehand and this factor being ignored. The path to "transitioning" is usually the result of a long process of emulating the opposite gender, which is affirmed by their friends, teachers, co-workers, and virtually everyone in their social circle. After all, nobody wants to lose their job for being "transphobic," and people naively believe that affirming this behaviour will help the troubled young person in question. Unfortunately, the result of this affirmation is the tacit approval of life-changing, irreversible procedures that render these young people infertile, harm their bodies, do nothing to cure their mental health issues, and leave them more lost and confused than ever. This is allowed to occur even though children generally grow out of confusion about their gender. As Bernard Lane has written for The Australian, "In past studies, about 60-80 per cent of children diagnosed with dysphoria as young as three or four grew out of it, without need of medical treatment that can make them infertile and permanently dependent on doctors… A rise in detransitioners has been predicted, as more young adults emerge with medical complications and untreated psychological issues. Many reportedly present at gender clinics with pre-existing mental health problems, autism spectrum disorder, ¬awkward same-sex attraction, sexual abuse, or family trauma." Imagine if that 60-80 per cent were pre-emptively placed on puberty blockers. Furthermore, why are children as young as three or four years old being diagnosed with gender dysphoria? The notion that some "expert" is qualified to tell a child that they are, in fact, the opposite gender to their biological sex is heinous and absurd. It is not without just cause that many parents feel that the educational and medical establishments are out to get their children. There is also a growing number of YouTube channels of people (usually women) who are in the process of detransitioning and documenting their experiences. The ideologues in health and education departments either ignore them or are unaware of them. As one U.S. woman who radically altered her body and is now trying to reverse the process said, "I'm angry. What's going to happen to the kids and the youth… I'm sad for humanity and the children and what's going to happen." Listening to their stories is distressing and highlights the urgent need to prevent this from happening to other vulnerable young people. Indeed, studies show that most children who experience gender dysphoria grow out of it as the reach adulthood. In one 2008 study, only 3 out of the 25 female subjects who had sought treatment for gender identity disorder had persisted in their "transition." In another study from 2013, 47 out of 127 children had persisted with the "treatment,", and the children were still only 15 when the study was concluded, having been under 12 when referred to a gender identity clinic. Simply put, it is not unusual for children and teenagers to desist with their "transition" after a period. Why, then, are we allowing this? Because we are so often told that allowing and encouraging young people to "transition" is essential to their mental health. We are told that we must indulge the false belief that one's gender can be other than their biological sex if we want to "save trans lives." This is an emotionally manipulative, guilt-tripping tactic used to bully sensible, well-meaning people into going along with something irrational. We should be seeking to treat the underlying mental health conditions and insecurities, as well as cultural issues, that give rise to gender dysphoria, not encouraging it in the misguided hope that if we affirm it enough, sufferers will somehow get better. They don't. If gender dysphoria is reflective of a treatable, or even passing, psychological condition, likely influenced by the confusing messages that children are bombarded with on social media, entertainment, and in schools, then affirming it is one of the most harmful things our society does. If Labor and the Greens really cared about these young people, they would pursue the truth. It is precisely because we care about vulnerable young people that we must speak the truth. Make no mistake, those who fail to do so will, in time, be deemed as being on the wrong side of history. Sooner or later, the public will see how dangerous this is, and trans ideology will be relegated to a folly of the past. The question is, how many more young lives will be devastated before that happens? It is for all of these reasons that I am introducing this Bill in the hopes that this Parliament will take the right course of action and protect our young people. If a person is under 18 in Australia, they are forbidden from buying alcoholic drinks, buying cigarettes, buying R-rated media, and getting a tattoo. If they are under 16, they are forbidden from driving a car. Yet we are placing children on puberty-suppressing drugs which stunt their physical development due to what may accurately be described as a social contagion and a symptom of underlying mental health issues. This contradiction reveals a society that is failing to protect its children. I hope that all members of our Parliament will do the right thing and stand up to the ideologues who confuse and victimise our children, and that Australia will lead the way in ensuring that no more irreversible damage is done to our children. Senator ANTIC 269375 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 77 DOCUMENTS Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water 77 Order for the Production of Documents 77 16:13 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than midday on Monday, 6 November 2023: (a) a copy of each individual submission, and each survey response, in relation to the draft Recycling and Waste Reduction (Export—Waste Paper and Cardboard) Rules 2023; (b) any emails, file notes, briefing materials and other written correspondence between the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) and the Minister for the Environment and Water relating to the compilation of the 'Summary of stakeholder feedback', on the draft Recycling and Waste Reduction (Export—Waste Paper and Cardboard) Rules 2023, that is scheduled to be publicly released this month; and (c) any emails, file notes, briefing materials, and other written correspondence between DCCEEW and the staff of the Minister for the Environment and Water relating to the compilation of the 'Summary of stakeholder feedback', on the draft Recycling and Waste Reduction (Export—Waste Paper and Cardboard) Rules 2023, that is scheduled to be publicly released this month. Question agreed to. Order for the Production of Documents 78 16:14 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Cash, I move: That— (a) the Senate notes that, as at 3 pm on Tuesday, 17 October 2023, 314 questions on notice from the May 2023-24 Budget estimates remain unanswered and are overdue: (i) Attorney-General's, 23 questions, (ii) Defence, 27 questions, (iii) Employment and Workplace Relations, 4 questions, (iv) Foreign Affairs and Trade, 2 questions, (v) Health and Aged Care, 191 questions, (vi) Industry, Science and Resources, 3 questions, (vii) Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, 22 questions, (viii) Prime Minister and Cabinet, 3 questions, and (ix) Treasury, 39 questions; and (b) there be laid on the table by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, by no later than 5 pm on Thursday, 19 October 2023, the answers to all 314 unanswered questions on notice from the May 2023-24 Budget estimates. 16:14 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 The government welcomes the opportunity to speak about its performance when responding to estimates questions on notice. A total of 8,628 questions were placed on notice at the 2023-24 budget estimates. Only 287 remained unanswered, which represents three per cent of the total. This contrasts with the performance of the former government, which routinely tabled hundreds of answers to questions on notice on the morning of estimates hearings or whilst they were underway. Question agreed to. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 78 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Cost of Living 78 16:15 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 A letter has been received from Senator McGrath: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: With the average family with a mortgage paying $1,500 a month more, paying 20 per cent more on energy bills, record high petrol prices and their real wages going backwards, Australians are facing a full-blown cost of living crisis and a litany of Albanese Labor Government broken promises. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 16:16 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I'm just going to read out, for those who are listening at home, what this matter of public importance is about: With the average family with a mortgage paying $1,500 a month more, paying 20 per cent more on energy bills, record high petrol prices and their real wages going backwards, Australians are facing a full-blown cost of living crisis and a litany of Albanese Labor Government broken promises. Isn't this interesting? We've got a government who have been in power for almost 18 months, and they've just wasted $450 million on a failed referendum, and they haven't been talking about cost of living or any of the other issues that impact upon how Australians live their lives. That is a tragedy. You can think about what that money could have been spent on in terms of helping Australians alleviate the cost-of-living crisis. More importantly, it goes to the political priorities of this government. They wanted to bring forward a referendum that would divide this country rather than focus on cost of living. What is interesting is that, since the weekend, the Prime Minister has discovered three words, and they are 'cost of living'— Senator Brockman 30484 'Crisis'. He's forgotten one. Senator McGRATH 217241 'Crisis'—thank you, Senator Brockman. It's a cost-of-living crisis. It's almost like a focus group told him: 'By the way, Prime Minister, we're in a cost-of-living crisis. You should do something about it.' You know what that focus group was? It was the Australian people, on the weekend. They told him to focus on the issues that impact upon all Australians. Australian families, whether you live in Cairns, Cunnamulla, Brisbane—I'm a Queensland senator; all I care about is Queensland—or wherever you live in Queensland, you've got a Labor government who don't care about you. They care about chasing your vote, but they don't care about how you live your lives and they don't care about how tough your life is at the moment. During the recent referendum, I spent a fair bit of time driving around Queensland, going into prepolls, talking to voters. In fact, I do that all the time, even when elections aren't on. The No. 1 issue in Queensland is cost of living, followed by the crime crisis, followed by the hospital ramping crisis, followed by the infrastructure crisis. Queenslanders have lost out. We've won reverse lotto. We've got a Labor state government and now we've got a Labor federal government, and both governments aren't helping Australian families and are continuing to break their promises. What is interesting is the top 10—or is it the bottom 10?—things that are really hitting Queensland families. If you look at inflation since August last year, education is up 5½ per cent—that's No. 10. If you want to go on a holiday and rent a motel somewhere—you don't want to get on a Qantas flight because you can't afford those, thanks to the cartel—that has gone up 6.6 per cent. Manufactured food products, No. 8, went up 6.9 per cent. Rents have gone up 7.8 per cent. Insurance and financial services, No. 6 on my top-10 list, have gone up 8.8 per cent. Dairy and related products have gone up 10.1 per cent. But guess what? I bet the dairy farmers aren't getting the money that they need for their work. Then you've got No. 4. Bread and cereal products have gone up 10.4 per cent. In the last year, electricity has gone up at least 12.7 per cent. What you're going to find is that, despite this government promising 97 times before the last election that they would reduce your bills by $275, you'll be lucky if your bills only go up by 12.7 per cent. You're looking at between 20 and 30 per cent. If you've got gas—and that hasn't been banned yet by the Labor Party—that's gone up 12.9 per cent. Heaven forbid, if you happen to be lucky enough to drive a car and own a car, how much fuel is costing at the moment. When you go there and you look at the price, you actually think the bowser has made a mistake and that someone needs to give it a kick or go in and speak to the attendant and say, 'I think there's a problem here.' Clearly, petrol cannot cost this much. Australians and Queenslanders are living in this cost-of-living crisis, and we have a prime minister who does not understand. He talks the words, but he does not walk in the boots of working Queenslanders and working Australians. 16:21 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I always welcome the opportunity to come in here and talk about what the Albanese government is doing to provide cost-of-living relief. I'm happy to read out the list; maybe some of those opposite can take this in. We've invested in: a 10-point plan to address cost-of-living pressures, including in energy bill relief, which is worth $23 billion—of course, Liberals and Nationals voted against that; cheaper medicines, which the Liberals and Nationals voted against as well; cheaper child care, which, again, the Liberals and Nationals voted against; increased rent assistance and a boost to income support payments—yes, the Liberals and Nationals were against that too; and building more affordable homes—here they are, the Liberals and Nationals, against that as well; fee-free TAFE places, which the deputy leader of the Liberals called 'wasteful spending'. That's right: Ms Ley, the shadow minister for skills and training says that helping people access skills and training is a waste of money. The Leader of the Opposition has not even said the word TAFE in this building since 2004. There are now people old enough to vote who have lived their entire lives—18- and 19-year-olds—and have never heard Mr Dutton say the word 'TAFE'. That's how much he cares about helping Aussie workers to get the training they need to get a decent job and a decent life for their families. But, for those watching along at home, it's also equally important that we talk about the what the opposition are doing. The Liberals and Nationals, as we all know, intentionally kept wages low for nine years of their government. We know this because they told us explicitly. Senator Cormann let it slip that low wages growth was a deliberate design feature of their economic plan. The Liberals and Nationals' plan has always been about low wages. Given Senator McGrath's sudden discovery of cost-of-living issues, you might think, 'Hang on, we can help with cost-of-living pressures by getting wages moving.' If you earn more and if you have more money, you have more money to spend on things. It's pretty basic stuff. But it must be going over the heads of Liberals and Nationals. On the one hand, they are complaining about the cost of living, and, at the very same time, the Liberals and Nationals are opposing every single measure the government is taking to grow wages. Let's look back at the 'secure jobs, better pay' act that the government passed at the end of last year. The opposition voted against it. In fact, not only did they vote against it; they warned that, if passed, it would end civilisation as we know it. Senator Cash said at the time: We can now expect jobs will be lost … and large and small businesses will fold. Of course, none of this has happened. That's just how much the Liberals and Nationals hate anything like giving working Australians a fair pay rise. What did they oppose in that bill? The Liberals and Nationals opposed making it easier for employers and employees to reach agreements that would increase wages. The Liberals and Nationals opposed sunsetting zombie agreements that were putting some workers on pay well below the national minimum wage. They opposed putting limits on the used of fixed-term contracts. They opposed the right to request flexible work arrangements. They opposed banning pay secrecy clauses. They opposed making it illegal to put on jobs ads below the minimum wage. And, of course, they opposed the Albanese government's campaigning for increases to the minimum wage that would stop workers going backwards. How can they then come into this place and talk about the cost of living? Not only do they oppose cheaper energy bills, medicines, training, child care and housing; they even oppose increasing wages. If you're wondering if maybe the Liberals and Nationals have turned over a new leaf, I'm afraid you're sadly mistaken. There is legislation before the Senate right now which will grow wages for working people across the country—and they oppose it. The Liberals and Nationals are opposed to closing Alan Joyce's labour hire loophole. They oppose the minimum wage for gig workers. They are opposed to long-term permanent casuals' right to get a permanent job. They are opposed to criminalising wage theft. They oppose, oppose, oppose. The Liberals and Nationals oppose it because they will always be for low pay. It's just in their DNA. 16:26 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria You know who is most affected by the cost-of-living crisis in Australia? It's the millions of Australians who are not just struggling to get by but are not getting by on income support. It's those millions of Australians who are at risk of homelessness, who can't afford food, for whom food has now become a discretionary item because they are living on poverty payments. They are living on the poverty payments of JobSeeker, student allowance and youth allowance. They are living on the disability support pension. They are living on the aged pension. They are the people who are most struggling to get by. I want to share a story from Sarah, who is barely scraping by on JobSeeker: … I am struggling to get by, even with the JobSeeker payment. I work 2 days a week, sometimes 1 day, but it feels like the moment I get paid anything from work my payments are severely cut. I was certainly earning more on Austudy, which shouldn't be the case. Those on JobSeeker are now also forced to report TWICE, once to WorkForce Australia and once on the Centrelink app. The two systems obviously aren't connected to each other and it is causing double the workload for people who are already struggling. I'm currently struggling to put petrol in my car, afford healthy meals/fresh produce and have just had to use my back up rent money to buy groceries. I don't have the kind of family supports that mean I can just ask my parents for money. My father is out of my life and my single mother has my younger sister to look after as well as three pets on an average wage. Raising the rate of JobSeeker and other social security payments would mean that I would have more time to devote to my studies, less mental and physical ailments from not being able to look after myself properly. I can't afford the dentist, I can't afford therapy, and, if my GP decides to cut bulk billing, I won't be able to go to the doctor either. Considering going to the doctor literally saved my life from cancer, this is a terrifying thought. Labor like to think of themselves as a progressive party, doing the work to help the everyday Australian, but we are being left to rot at the bottom of the priority list. The opinions of businesses and lobbyists are being put before our very real, life-altering needs. If they raised the rate of social security payments to at least the poverty line, they would have millions of grateful Australians ready to support them. We are a wealthy country and we should be capable of looking after our own. Hear, hear, Sarah! In terms of Labor's promises, the No. 1 promise Labor have broken is their promise that they weren't going to leave anybody behind. Millions of Australians who are struggling on income support are being left behind. We have to raise the rate to above the poverty line and cap rents, freeze rents and make life liveable for people who are surviving on poverty payments. (Time expired) 16:29 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Those who are listening to this debate do not need to listen to the political rhetoric that is being spoken in this chamber. They simply need to look at the statistics. They simply need to look at their pay packets, their bills and how much it's costing them to fill their car at the petrol bowser. They don't have to listen to any of the political rhetoric. What I heard on Saturday when I was out at Ipswich manning a polling booth for nine hours at a place called Churchill State School is that people are suffering under the cost-of-living crisis. A number of people came through that booth and said to me, 'I can't believe the government is spending this amount of money on this referendum process—hundreds of millions of dollars—when I am struggling to pay my bills.' Person after person after person raised that issue. That is why we saw the federal government, in the first question time of this week, pivot to talk about cost of living, because no doubt they got the same feedback at polling booths across the whole country. The polling booth I was at was in the Ipswich City Council region, where my office is located. Those are suburbs of battlers. They're salt-of-the-earth people, but they're battlers. I visited the food bank in Ipswich. I visited various community support organisations. Everywhere I go I get the same message: that people are struggling with the cost-of-living crisis. The people at the food bank run by Ipswich Assist told me that the demand is going through the roof and the people now coming to Ipswich Assist are working families, because they're having trouble meeting their mortgage payments and paying their bills. And why wouldn't they have trouble with those things when we know that an Australian family with an average Australian mortgage are paying $22,000 a year more than they were just a year ago. Just reflect on that: $22,000 more a year on mortgage payments. So they've got to meet all the other bills that they're trying to meet whilst also paying an additional $22,000 in mortgage payments, and they are holding on by their fingernails. They deserve better. So Senator Sheldon can come into this place and deliver rhetoric. We can simply refer to the statistics, and this is what they're telling us. In the period from August 2022 to August 2023, the price of bread and cereal products, which are basic staples for average Australian families, has gone up by 10.4 per cent, prices for meat have gone up by 2.6 per cent, prices for dairy and related products have gone up by10.1 per cent, and prices for other food products have gone up by 6.9 per cent. Garments are also up. Rents, as we all know, have gone up by 7.8 per cent. Electricity! This is in a context where the Prime Minister made a promise before the last federal election that the cost of electricity for an average Australian household would go down by $275 a year. That was the promise he made. Those listening to this debate will never hear those opposite mention that number $275, but this is the reality: in the 12 months from August 2022 to August 2023, the cost of electricity has gone up by 12.7 per cent. So not only did it not go down but it actually went up by 12.7 per cent. The cost of gas and other household fuels has gone up by 12.9 per cent. The cost of furniture has gone up by four per cent. The cost of transport has gone up by 7.4 per cent. The cost of automotive fuel has gone up by 13.9 per cent. The cost of holiday travel and accommodation—and everyone in this country deserves a holiday, to be able to get away with their family and enjoy a holiday in the great Australian country—has gone up by 6.6 per cent. The cost of insurance and financial services has gone up by 8.8 per cent. The people I talk to struggle to pay their car insurance. They're struggling to meet those bills. We are in a cost-of-living crisis, and the response of the Labor government is simply not good enough. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Before I call Senator Roberts, I advise the chamber there has been a change of order and arrangements, and Senator Roberts has five minutes. 16:35 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia I want to show how One Nation will fix the cost-of-living crisis. To fix the cost-of-living crisis there are only three things parliament must do: stop the flood of immigration into this country to fix the housing crisis; stop the chasing of the UN net-zero pipedream to fix energy bills; and stop the Reserve Bank printing money out of thin air to fix inflation. Every time we hear about the number of immigrants coming in, the number goes up. Just this week it was reported that Deutsche Bank predicts that a net immigration for the financial year will top 530,000. That does not include temporary workers. It does not include students, so the total is 1.2 million in one year. That is more than the entire population of Canberra arriving in one year; in fact, it is almost triple. Immigration is why we have a rental crisis. It is why we have a housing crisis. It is why many young people will never be able to buy a home. The big business donors to both Liberal and Labor benefit from big immigration. If we want a roof over every Australian head, we must stop this flood. The next contributor to our problem is the UN's net-zero scam. The lie that wind and solar is the cheapest electricity is debunked using one fact. With the largest amount of wind, solar and batteries on Australia's power grid in our history, power bills have never been higher. Every country in the world that has tried to go down the path of wind and solar has had higher power bills—every country. Watch electricity bills drop when we abandon UN net zero, fire up the coal-fired power stations and let nuclear onto the playing field. To fix inflation, just stop the Reserve Bank printing $500 billion, as they did during COVID—half a trillion dollars. That way the Reserve Bank doesn't have to try and send mortgage holders broke to fix the problem the Reserve Bank caused. Many of the solutions are simple. We just need more One Nation members because only we have the guts to call this rubbish out. Liberal Senator McGrath mentioned in raising this MPI motion that mortgages are up an average of $1,500 a month. Let's rewind the tape and look at why that is happening. The Reserve Bank claims it needs to raise interest rates to fight inflation. Inflation is like an equation. When you have too much money chasing too few goods, prices go up. It is that simple. Throughout history, the idea has been that if the Reserve Bank raises interest rates enough, mortgage holders will not have money to spend, so prices will come down. That takes care of the too-much-money side of the equation. With interest rates higher, Australians will have less money to spend on goods, so inflation will come down. Now, I am not kidding. This is what the Reserve Bank means when they say they are 'fighting inflation'. They are sending Australians broke to solve a problem that the Reserve Bank created with the Morrison government. What no-one likes to talk about is the Reserve Bank's part in creating the inflation problem. You will remember from our equation that too much money equals more inflation. During the pandemic the Reserve Bank printed roughly half a trillion dollars—$500 billion—out of thin air using what they call 'electronic ledger entries'—their words. Half a trillion dollars was conjured out of thin air and dropped from a helicopter to compensate for the Liberal government's economy-wrecking COVID restrictions that were not necessary. That $500 billion is new money and a major cause of the inflation problem Australia is still fighting, and who got the money? Largely, it was foreign-owned multinationals. To summarise the inflation problem, the Reserve Bank printed hundreds of billions of dollars out of thin air. That led to huge inflation. Now the Reserve Bank is trying to send enough mortgage holders broke so they will stop spending to try and bring inflation down—another housing crisis. Lockdowns devastated our economy, our businesses. That cut the supply side, which meant fewer goods, which meant prices for those of goods raised—inflation. This is not a comedy skit; this is the strategy of the people who were and who are running the country, and they are in charge of our economy. Every single part of this happened under the direction and watch of the supposedly conservative Liberal-National coalition government. For the Liberals to come to this chamber and bemoan the inflation problem and mortgage repayments is politics at its worst. I said earlier in the week that, with this economy, the Liberal-National coalition government gave Labor one of the largest hospital passes in political history. In saying that, Labor now wants to turbocharge the destruction of our economy. 16:40 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I rise to speak on this very important matter of public importance and to congratulate Senator McGrath for putting this matter before the Senate. As Senator Scarr so rightly pointed out, as I am sure many of us were standing on polling booths on 14 October, a few short days ago, we talked to many hundreds of Australians, and the single most raised issue on those polling booths was not actually the referendum question. People had already made up their minds on that. The single most talked about issue was cost of living and the pressures Australian families find themselves under. The fact is—and there can be no denying this—that the government have been distracted for the last year. They have been distracted by Prime Minister Albanese's pet project. He had the pen on this referendum. He decided what the question was going to be. He put it to the Australian people and the Australian people comprehensively and correctly rejected that proposal. But, in distracting the government for the past six months, the government has been unable to tackle what is the real and most confronting issue that Australian families are having to deal with, and that is the cost-of-living crisis. As I always have to do in these contributions, I have to correct some of the mistruths that have come from those opposite once again, particularly on wages. The fact is—and I will say this again to those listening out there; I must have said this about a dozen times in this place already—that real wages grew under the last coalition government. They are declining under this Labor government. Real wages are in fact plummeting at one of the fastest rates in living memory--plummeting. I will go to another mistruth. In talking about industrial relations, Senator Sheldon talked about the fact that there had been no impact from Labor's disastrous industrial relations legislation. Let's look at what is happening in corporate insolvency for a moment. No impact on business? From the latest corporate insolvency data from ASIC, we see that, in the financial year 2023, there were 7,942 businesses entering administration. Let me say that again: 7,942 businesses in trouble, businesses entering administration. How does that compare to the year before? Senator Scarr, I know you would know. I bet none of those opposite could answer. It was 4,900. In 2022, there were 4,900 businesses in administration. In the 2023 financial year, there were 7,942. And Labor's IR legislation had no impact? Oh, I think it did. I think it has put business under even more pressure. If we go back another year, there were only 2,000. I say 'only' but, obviously we would like to see no businesses struggling. So we have seen over this period of Labor government the number basically double in the 18 months of their administration, including the passage of the first tranche of IR legislation. We will see further pressure on those small businesses and medium-sized businesses if we see—and hopefully we don't see—the government gets its next tranche of IR legislation through. So we will see even more pressure on those businesses. The cost of living doesn't just affect Australian households, though it is dramatic—and I am not downplaying the impact on Australian households of the cost-of-living crisis—but also affects business. It affects small- and medium-sized family businesses right across this nation. Discretionary spending goes down and those businesses suffer. The cost of their suppliers goes up in the inflationary environment and those businesses suffer. They want to keep their workers on. They want to give their workers a pay rise, absolutely, but the pressure those businesses are under at the moment is extreme. If the Labor government doesn't understand that, then heaven help Australian businesses. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 The time for this discussion has expired. MATTERS OF URGENCY 83 MATTERS OF URGENCY Israel 83 16:45 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter from Senator McKim: Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today the Australian Greens propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: That the Senate opposes Israel's invasion of Gaza." Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with informal arrangements made by the whips. I just remind senators of the standing orders. If there are any interruptions, I will be calling those senators to stop. 16:45 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia At the request of Senator McKim, I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: That the Senate opposes Israel's invasion of Gaza. This motion is very simple. It calls upon the Senate to oppose the state of Israel's invasion of Gaza. That is it. We are calling upon this chamber to condemn an invasion which will turn a humanitarian disaster into a humanitarian catastrophe. The reality is, right now, the state of Israel is engaged in the commission of war crimes against the Palestinian population of Gaza. Over a million children are trapped in the Gaza Strip. Forty per cent of the population of the Gaza Strip are below the age of 15. And yet we are seeing the Israeli military engage in a campaign of indiscriminate bombing of civilians, and we have seen devastating loss of civilian life. The very same compassion and commitment to honesty and to justice and to peace which has rightly moved so many to condemn the war crimes of Hamas upon innocent Israeli civilians on 7 October must now move this Senate to condemn the war crimes of the state of Israel against the people of Gaza and to oppose its impending invasion. We are seeing hospitals bombed. We are seeing ambulances bombed. Journalists are being murdered. Health workers are being murdered. An entire section of the world, a section of the world half the size of the ACT, home to over two million people, is subject to a military siege denying them food, water, electricity and medicine, in a textbook violation of the Geneva Convention. These are war crimes, and an invasion by the state of Israel of Gaza must be opposed. International human rights organisations are uniting in their call for engagement and action by the global community. The Secretary General of Amnesty International has said, 'The cost of unreserved support for the government of Israel in this invasion, particularly the unreserved support of the United States and of the European Union, is more war crimes against civilians.' The more that we allow this to occur without calling it for what it is, the more we become complicit in the commission of these crimes. This is an opportunity for the Senate to place itself on the right side of history. It's an opportunity, in this moment of challenge for our community, to state clearly that this chamber at least is able to find it in itself to oppose an invasion which will see children and innocent civilians subjected to even more destruction and to do so in the full knowledge that the evidence on the ground speaks clearly to what the state of Israel and its military have already committed against the communities of Gaza. We must take this moment to state clearly that we oppose this invasion. We must take this moment to state clearly that we oppose the destruction of civilian life. The Greens will continue in solidarity with the Australian Palestinian community— (Time expired) 16:50 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania I'm sure that every member of the Senate shares a deep concern for every innocent civilian, both in Gaza and in Israel, whose life has been put at risk by the abhorrent, barbaric acts of evil perpetrated by Hamas. Every single loss of life of an innocent civilian is a tragedy. They are tragedies that one side is determined to avoid and the other side, being Hamas, is determined to maximise in pursuit of its evil goals and ideology. Hamas has murdered 1,300 Israeli citizens as well as citizens of a number of other countries, including Australia. They have raped women, they have killed babies and small children and they have taken 200 innocent Israelis hostage. It is a real shame that, when Israelis are murdered, the Greens have to find the first opportunity they can to criticise and condemn Israel. It seems that, for a certain segment of the far left, the expectation is that Israel must sit by and be attacked by terrorists day in and day out. When one of those attacks breaks through Israel's defences and murders over a thousand Israelis, the far left can't even allow one day of mourning for the innocent victims before they jump up to say that Israel is to blame and condemn any military response by Israel to save its own people and bring the terrorists to justice. They suggest that Israel should leave its own citizens held hostage in Gaza to the mercy of a terrorist group which has no mercy and which seeks to eradicate Israel and all of its citizens. This motion put up by the Greens today could have condemned Hamas. It could have called for Hamas to release all of the hostages that have been taken. It could have called for action by the international community to stop the Islamic Republic of Iran funding Hamas and Hezbollah to murder Jews. It could have condemned the IRI regime and all of its proxies, who have threatened all-out war against Israel, a threat which puts every civilian in the region in danger. But, no, the Greens have chosen to oppose one of the very few options Israel has on the table, one which may—hopefully—give it a chance to save the women, the young children and the elderly being held in horrific conditions by Hamas. Nobody wants to see war—a ground war or any other kind of war—but what exactly do the Greens want Israel to do other than capitulate to Hamas and let them keep doing as they have done? As Australians, we desperately hope never to be in a situation where our government has to come up with a plan to rescue 200 of our citizens being held hostage by the most barbaric terrorist group on the planet. We certainly hope that we will never be in the situation of having several of the worst terrorist groups on earth on our border, repeatedly trying to fire rockets and kill our citizens however they can, but that is exactly the situation that Israel is currently in, while the far left in western countries pass judgement and condemn them, even while Israel mourns the worst attack on Jewish people since the Holocaust. I point out that the action that the Greens are condemning today hasn't actually happened yet. For many days Israel has been issuing warnings to citizens of Gaza to move away from danger areas, but Hamas has been actively stopping civilians from moving to safer areas. Why doesn't this motion that we are debating here today oppose Hamas deliberately using civilians of Gaza as human shields, as they have done for years? Hamas is the occupier of Gaza. For as long as Hamas is protected and controls Gaza then the citizens of Gaza will never be safe or free. That's what this motion that we are discussing here today could have discussed. That is what the Greens could have found within themselves to discuss in this chamber today. We in the coalition unequivocally must condemn the motion they have put up. We condemn the Greens shamelessly playing politics with the situation that is currently playing out in the Middle East. 16:55 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia At the outset I want to highlight the inappropriateness in my mind of the Greens bringing this matter of urgency forward when all senators in this place had the opportunity to debate an extensive motion on the issue, including the Greens amendment, and vote on it this morning. Sadly, I'm not surprised. Shame on anyone who politicises this tragedy for their own childish political gains. As has already been said, any loss of innocent life is a tragedy. This is an extremely alarming time not just for the people in Israel and Gaza but also for Israelis and Palestinians and their loved ones around the world and here in Australia. To date and at the last count 2,778 Palestinians have been killed, 9,700 Palestinians have been wounded, an additional 1,200 have been buried under rubble, more than 1,400 Israelis have been killed and a further 3,000 wounded. The attack on Israel also resulted in some 200 people being taken as hostages into Gaza. These are innocent civilians—the elderly, children, babies and young people enjoying a music festival. This is why this whole situation is simply devastating. As Senator Wong stated during question time today, we urge the protection of civilian lives. Furthermore, this is not an ordinary political debate. Everyone has their own views on this and for many it is extremely personal. Every life matters. We must all never forget that. I take this opportunity to offer my sincere condolences to the families and loved ones of all civilians, both Israelis and Palestinians, who have lost their lives as a result of this conflict. We have seen a devastating loss of innocent life with the heinous attacks on Israel by the brutal terrorist group Hamas. Far from representing the Palestinian people, Hamas undermines Palestinian needs and aspirations. We continue to call for the unconditional release of all hostages. We stand with Israel and reiterate its right to defend itself. The Australian government reiterates our call for the protection of civilian lives and the observance of international humanitarian law. The Albanese government's guiding principle has always been the pursuit of peace and progress towards a just and enduring two-state solution where Israelis and Palestinians can live within secure borders. One of the many tragedies of what Hamas has done is it has pushed any prospects for peace further from reach, undermining the legitimate aspirations and the needs of the Palestinian people themselves. The humanitarian situation in Gaza precipitated by Hamas's actions is of serious concern and it is rapidly deteriorating. To ensure that essential humanitarian relief can reach the civilians affected by the conflict in Gaza, Australia calls for safe and unimpeded humanitarian access to Gaza and the rapid establishment of a humanitarian corridor. Australia is providing an initial $10 million in humanitarian assistance for civilians affected by the conflict in Gaza. Australia will provide $3 million to the International Committee of the Red Cross to fund urgent needs, like restoring essential services and providing medical support to the victims of the conflict. Australia will continue to monitor and assess the humanitarian situation and stands ready to provide further support. Many of us here know and have friends and/or family in these affected areas. It's important we stand together as a community during this time. Last week I had the pleasure of attending a gathering in Perth—I would rather have been there under different circumstances—organised by the Perth Hebrew Congregation, where more than 1,000 Western Australians gathered together inside the synagogue, with many more attending outside who could not fit in, to support Israel. The congregation sang the prayer Oseh Shalom, which means prayer for 'one thing above all: that for Israel, for the Jewish people and for the world that there should be peace.' Peace and empathy are what we should be calling for and striving for here, particularly in this building—not turning this horrible situation into a topic for an MPI in this place. 17:00 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Every single day, we are waking up to scenes of utter horror and devastation in Gaza, as Israel continues its deadly and indiscriminate bombing of civilians. At least 500 people have been killed in a hospital bombing, a hospital in which many women, children, elderly and the sick were taking shelter from the deadly bombs raining down on the strip. Gaza is being strangled. Gaza is being bombed to dust. Israel is committing war crimes and collective punishment in plain sight. The hypocrisy of Western governments is also in plain sight. World leaders are silently watching this catastrophe unfold. They should hang their heads in shame forever. Australia's foreign minister keeps saying 'all civilian lives matter' but then refuses to condemn Israel for its war crimes. You refuse to call for a stop to the war on Gaza. You refuse to call for an end to the illegal occupation of Palestine. The Labor Party changed its policy just a few months ago to call Israel's settlements in the West Bank 'illegal' and to accept that the territories were occupied. One would think that, after that, it would be a bit more than window-dressing. But, no, we keep hearing these weasel words over and over, without any action on justice for Palestinians. Remove your colonial blinkers for one minute and have a look at what the truth is. The truth is this: Palestinians have been under brutal Israeli oppression for 75 years. Israel is a nuclear colonial state, armed to the teeth with billions upon billions of dollars in foreign aid, and the people in Gaza are a colonised and besieged people, many of whom are refugees—mostly children with no rights, no land and nowhere to go. Even war has rules, the UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, has said, as Israel is bombing civilians en masse and using white phosphorus. Medecins Sans Frontieres says: 'Gaza is being flattened. "Unprecedented" doesn't even cover the medical humanitarian impact of Israel's assault on Gaza.' Red Cross says, 'Mass casualties out of Gaza are unlike anything seen in recent years'. The Commissioner-General of UNRWA released a heartbreaking statement, as they are no longer able to provide humanitarian assistance in Gaza. 'Gaza is being strangled, and it seems that the world right now has lost its humanity,' he said. The death toll is now over 3,000 people, and thousands more are injured, with more than half of those killed by Israel and 52 per cent of them women and children. This is excluding the hundreds killed by Israel in the hospital bombing. As the government and those opposite continue to shield the apartheid state of Israel from all accountability, we see through your lies. We see through your hypocrisy. Which landmarks are being lit up now when Gazan civilians are dying in their thousands, including hundreds of children? Let me tell you: there is no flag or landmark large enough to cover the shame of your silence as innocent civilians are killed. There is no landmark large enough to shield those in here supporting the war crimes of Israel. To quote my courageous friend Randa Abdel-Fattah, author and academic: Still, there will come a day when this moment will be marked in history books as the shameful rallying of imperial, settler colonial states behind a violent, racist, apartheid settler colony regime, one that is founded and sustained on the domination and oppression of the Indigenous Palestinian people of the land. The people are with Palestine. The world over, tens of thousands are marching, even in the face of police intimidation. They are showing their love, solidarity and care for Palestinians. So, to my Palestinian brothers and sisters, I say: remember, you are not alone. There will come a time when there will be peace, and, when that time comes, history will question not just the silence but the aiding and abetting of war crimes and collective punishment. History will not forget the cheerleaders of war and the cheerleaders of Israel. For violence to end and peace to prevail, there has to be justice, and, for that justice, there must be an end to the siege and blockade of Gaza. There must be an end to Israel's illegal occupation and oppression. So stop the bombs, stop the war on Gaza and free Palestine. 17:05 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Today the Greens ask this Senate to adopt a simple motion: that the Senate opposes Israel's invasion of Gaza. We have heard from the foreign affairs minister statements that she and the Labor government want to see an end to civilian deaths. We've heard statements from Labor senators that every civilian death is a tragedy. How could you not, then, support a motion that calls for an end to the war that is causing those deaths? How could you not support a motion that calls for an end to the siege and the war on Gaza? How could you not support that just hours after a bomb fell from the sky and killed hundreds and hundreds of innocent Palestinian civilians, including medics, women and children? How could you not support this motion? How could you step from this chamber and pretend you have any solidarity with the Palestinian diaspora in this country or around the world? You could not. I want to put on the record, at the request of the Palestinian community here, some of the voices of Palestinians in Australia, around the world and in Gaza. It's just some of the cries for peace and for balance in this place. Baha Hilu, a Palestinian cultural and political events organiser in Beit Sahour says: We are survivors of Israeli apartheid. It is applied to the best of us and to the worst of us …We are forced into despair to the point where death is more merciful than life. Abu Aish, a 58-year-old Gazan rescue worker, said: I'm terrified all the time, of course I am. I'm human … I see the worst things you can imagine.' In this country, Samah Sabawi has said this: 'I was born in that hospital. It's now a massacre site—500 patients, medics, families, babies, people, humans killed. Tell me this is not a war crime.' Lana Tatour, a Palestinian-Australian academic, said this: 'Israel killed medical teams, patients and civilians seeking shelter in the hospital. Does the West have a red line when it comes to Israel?' Well, the red line is here. The red line is this motion. The red line is a clear statement that Palestinian lives matter and, if you believe that Palestinian lives matter, you must support an end to the bombing. You must support an end to the collective punishment of Palestinians—the removal of water, food and basic medicine. You must oppose an aggressive military that says to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians that they must flee their homes or they will be killed, when they have nowhere to flee. You must support the statements from the World Health Organization, which says the Israeli military's direction to hospitals to evacuate is a death sentence for the patients. Then we see, within hours of that statement from the WHO, the appalling, brutal bombing of a crowded Gazan hospital, with hundreds of lives lost. Those who oppose this motion oppose peace. Those who oppose this motion don't believe that Palestinian lives matter. Let's for once step outside the prism that this place has put itself in when it comes to Gaza and Palestine and support the motion and clearly state that Palestinian lives matter, that the occupation is deeply offensive and that we must have peace with justice. 17:09 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I rise to speak today with a deep sense of pain for the innocent civilians who have lost their lives in Gaza and Israel. No civilian should ever be the target of the violence of war. The horrific attack on Israel by Hamas has rightly moved all of us to voice our compassion and solidarity with the people of Israel and to decry this senseless and indefensible brutality. But we must be consistent in our compassion and we must be consistent in calling out war crimes—because, make no mistake, that is exactly what is happening in Gaza, as we speak. Airstrikes on hospitals and refugee camps are abhorrent crimes against humanity that no nation committed to peace and justice can support. The Greens share in the grief and horror of this unfolding tragedy. The Australian government must condemn in the strongest terms this utter disregard for the sanctity of human life and demand an immediate end to this senseless carnage. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 The question is that the motion moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [17:15]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator McGrath)

 11 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 41 NOES Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Brockman, W. E. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. White, L. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 BILLS 87 BILLS Family Law Amendment Bill 2023, Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023 87

Family Law Amendment Bill 2023

Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023

In Committee 87 17:19 The TEMPORARY CHAIR 217241 The question is that the bills stand as printed. 17:19 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The reason we're in the committee stage is the opposition rightly requested, and put forward a motion today, to rearrange the government's business to ensure this opportunity was given to us tonight. Had we not put forward that motion, we would currently be heading towards a guillotine of the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023, one of the most important bills to come before the Australian Senate. We had a number of questions that were asked yesterday in relation to the objects of the bill. I will commence my time in committee by putting a few remarks on the record for the benefit of the Hansard and for the benefit of my Senate colleagues. As I said, unfortunately this is not the committee stage we would have liked. It is an incredibly complex bill. It has an impact on the lives—in fact, it's one of the few bills that actually has a personal impact on people because thousands upon thousands of Australians are confronted with separation each year, and some of them have the unfortunate reality of having to go through the family law system. When Australians look at this debate, as they may well one day, I would like them to know where the coalition stands on this bill. I have circulated, on behalf of the coalition, nine separate sets of amendments to the bill; I will be moving them tomorrow. But I would like to speak to them, and then interrogate the minister further in relation to the government's aspects of the bill. The first set of amendments, on sheet 2066, relates to the objects and principles of the parenting framework and the factors a court must consider in determining the best interest of the children. It restores the objects clause of the parenting framework. Quite frankly, based on the answers we received from the minister yesterday, I cannot see how anybody in their right mind looking at the Hansard record from yesterday could possibly object to this. When you ask questions like, 'How does a mum or dad who are going through the family law system, who are going through one of the most distressing periods in their life, get guidance?'—because Labor are taking the objects out and are merely referencing, by incorporation, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child—the answer from the minister is, 'It is online.' I would have thought, in the first instance, that it makes no sense to remove the objects. Secondly, given the contempt this government clearly has for mums and dads out there who quite frankly won't even know what the UN convention is, let alone that they've got to go to it to work out what the objects of the family law system are in determining their case in relation to access to their children—as we heard yesterday, when they actually get to the convention online there are 54 separate articles they need to then work through to actually work out which ones will then apply to their case. Our amendments will restore the objects clause of the parenting framework. They say that basic principles like 'parents should agree about the future parenting of their children' should appear on the face of the legislation. These are important signposts for unrepresented litigants and for separating couples who never get to a court at all. This set of amendments also restores sense to the factors that determine the best interests of the child. It would require the courts to consider the benefit of a meaningful relationship—as we heard yesterday, the Australian government, through the Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, has removed the word 'meaningful'; we will have that restored—with the child's parents where it is safe to do so. It fixes a drafting error which would potentially encourage parents to coach their children. That is the evidence that has been presented and one of the issues that now arises. It also addresses significant legal concerns that the current drafting risks excluding information that is highly relevant to parenting orders. These changes are not controversial. They have been recommended by pre-eminent academics in the field, like Professor Patrick Parkinson, and bodies like the Law Council of Australia. The second set of amendments, on sheet 2067, which I have circulated on behalf of the coalition, adopts the ALRC's recommended drafting on the best way to address misunderstandings of the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. It accepts the evidence—as I said, the ALRC put this forward—that the presumption as currently drafted can often be confused with equal time. That is accepted. The coalition's amendments also accept the independent expert conclusion reached by the ALRC: The ALRC supports the idea that a presumption of shared parental responsibility serves as a good starting point for negotiations between parents and recommends that the concept be retained. The Attorney-General was not interested in what the ALRC said in relation to that. The ALRC also said: … the wording of the presumption should be clarified to avoid the confusion surrounding the term 'equal shared parental responsibility' and the conflation with equal time. One might say this is practical, not ideological, but obviously not according to the Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus. The third set of amendments I have circulated, on sheet 2068, improves the drafting around the reconsideration of final parenting orders. It reflects the considered view of bodies like the Law Council of Australia by allowing the court to take account of the kind of matter that a parenting order deals with when determining whether to reconsider. Again, this is appropriate. The threshold should be higher for revisiting major issues, like a child's religion or the city they live in. For less significant issues, like variations to the amount of time a child spends with a person, it should be lower. The fourth set of amendments, on sheet 2069, invites the government to start over in its simplification of the enforcement regime for parenting orders. It omits schedule 2 of the bill. We agree that the regime needs to be simplified, but the profession has been unimpressed with the legislation that the government has put forward and the proposal that the government wants the Senate to agree with. This is what one bar association—quite seriously, this is about Attorney-General Dreyfus's legislation—said to the Attorney-General: 'It replaces one complex mess with a different complex mess.' Well, that is great! I thought the whole point of the reviews that have been undertaken was to actually simplify the family law system. One complex mess has merely been replaced by the Attorney-General of Australia with another complex mess. The fifth amendment, on sheet 2070, addresses the unintended consequences of the government's change to the definitions of 'relative' and 'member of the family' for Indigenous children. As drafted, the government's bill would significantly expand notification obligations, but only in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families. What would then happen is that the Family Law Act would become more onerous for that group than it is for any other Australians. The sixth set of amendments, on sheet 2071, removes a provision that discourages any lawyer from taking on independent children's legal work. Why would you want to discourage lawyers from taking on this work? As drafted, the bill contains an implied threat that any lawyer doing such work could be subject to a hearing about their own conduct, adding an additional step in the litigation process and meaning additional time and costs for families. I will return to the balance of the amendments when I'm next able to speak. Yesterday, I was turning to the best-interests factors and a meaningful relationship with the child's parents. I'd again ask the minister to set the record. Do you agree it's in the best interests of a child to have a meaningful relationship with both parents where it is safe to do so? 17:29 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Where it's in the best interests of the child. 17:29 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia It would appear that we're going to be on the roundabout again of one particular answer being given all night. As we explore that answer, unfortunately, we do not seem to get any further down the path in terms of an explanation for the poor mums and dads who will be going through this process. Unfortunately, when we hit 8.30 it will all be over for this bill. The seventh amendment that I've moved on behalf of the coalition, on sheet 2702, adds an overarching objective to the practice and procedure provisions. As drafted, the objectives would allow an approach that is safe, quick and cheap—and entirely destructive of whatever is left of the family relationship. The amendment says that the court should also aim to minimise acrimony. I would have thought that that is exactly what you want to do. If you're in the Family Court system—let's be honest—it is a highly, highly contested situation. I would have thought that the amendment, providing that one of the court's aims should also be to minimise acrimony, is one that the government would be able accept. It also adopts a clear recommendation from the profession. The eighth amendment, on sheet 2073, opposes the entirety of schedule 8. The only purpose for that schedule—and you've got to love the Attorney-General, seriously—is to provide a trigger for the Attorney to demerge the family courts after the next election. I note that, in an article written a few weeks ago, regarding this part of the act and whether or not this was a path the government was going to go down, a spokesperson for the Attorney-General, or it may have been the Attorney-General himself, basically said that was a matter for the government. If you are not going to do it, (a) why would you put it in this bill and (b) why wouldn't you come out and say, 'No, that is not the intention of this schedule.' And yet what we know, from the limited committee inquiry, is that it is a purely political decision that came out of the Attorney-General's office. I am still unable to find any evidence that it was recommended. As I said, it's a political decision that came out of the Attorney-General's office. The ninth amendment, on sheet 2706, requires a review of this bill in its entirety. We have shown good faith here and required that the review be independent. Unfortunately, the Attorney was not prepared to match that commitment. Instead of acting in the best interests of families, he has set up an option to find a friendly reviewer that will recommend what he wants to hear so he can further pursue his ideological family law agenda—again to the detriment of those thousands of families who, unfortunately, are going to come into contact with this system. Without the amendments that we propose, the bill itself can only have a very sad ending for so many. These are sensible amendments. The amendments that we have put forward reflect the considered view of independent bodies and experts—including, as I said, the Australian Law Reform Commission—in particular, in relation to the total removal of the presumption of equal shared responsibility, another frolic of the Attorney-General. There's no evidence that the Attorney-General took into consideration the recommendation of the Australian Law Reform Commission. As I said, they are sensible amendments that take into account the considered views of independent bodies and independent experts. I would ask that, as senators are looking at these amendments, they—even the government—do so in the spirit of bipartisanship. All we want to do is improve the bill. We acknowledge that a deal has been done. Obviously the bill will go through, but I would just ask the government to reflect on our amendments and the fact that they have been put forward, as I said, in a genuine effort of bipartisanship and to actually make the bill better. Minister, in March, the Attorney-General published a piece in the Herald Sun, the Daily Telegraph, the Advertiser and the Courier Mail in which he said: For most children, it is overwhelmingly in their best interest to have a meaningful relationship with both parents after separation. The proposed amendments recognise this. But Professor Patrick Parkinson—and, on any analysis, he is a leading expert in the field and a key architect of the existing legislation—said in his submission that 'the new bill essentially removes from the act almost every single reference to the importance of both parents being involved in children's lives after separation'. In fact, directly contrary to the Attorney's claims, the government, in the legislation we have before us, has quite deliberately—it is a deliberate act—and expressly removed any requirement to consider a meaningful relationship at all. I go back to the Attorney-General's quote: For most children, it is overwhelmingly in their best interest to have a meaningful relationship with both parents after separation. The proposed amendments recognise this. They are actually the Attorney-General's words. You then have the evidence of one of the leading experts in the field who points to the bill itself and says that this is not reflected in the bill. The Attorney-General's claim that interest proposed amendments recognise that it is overwhelmingly in the best interests of children to have a meaningful relationship with both children is misleading, Minister. Can I ask why he made that statement? 17:37 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thank you, Senator Cash. Unfortunately, I have not seen the article that you are referring to. I do try to follow the actions and media articles of the Attorney-General as best I can, but I have not seen that. But, in terms of the removal of the term 'meaningful', as I think we touched on briefly yesterday, the ALRC recommended the removal of the term 'meaningful' in the best interests factors. There is ambiguity about the meaning of this word, and the government's proposed drafting emphasises that the sort of relationship that will benefit the child is a question of fact to be determined in each case. 17:37 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Unfortunately, even the answer would appear to indicate that what the Attorney-General said in the published piece is inconsistent with the bill we actually have before us and the amendment moved by the opposition to add back in or to restore the word 'meaningful' was probably more of a reflection of the Attorney-General's quote. I will now turn to 'any views expressed by the child'. I want to take you to proposed section 60CC(2)(b). This is the provision that says that, in determining what is in the child's best interest, the court must consider 'any views expressed by the child'. If a parent maliciously coaches a child to say something hurtful or untrue, under this drafting, the court would need to consider that, wouldn't it? 17:39 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland It is a fact that some parents will seek to manipulate or pressure their children to express certain views in family law matters. This is a complex problem. However, it is not a reason to deprive children of their human rights. Not allowing children to be heard in matters affecting them so significantly as the creation of orders about who they live with and where and where they get to see each of their parents can have devastating impacts on them. It can disempower and frustrate them, it can exacerbate any trauma they have experienced and it can lead to the creation of orders that are not in their best interests and, in the worst cases, unsafe. It is not anticipated that any of the reforms will lead to a higher degree of parental alienation or pressure from parents on children in the family law system. Key measures in the bill focus on enhancing the practice of professionals in the family law system. Over time, these are intended to contribute to ensuring that more fulsome evidence about the context of a child's relationship with their parents is provided to decision-makers, including to identify circumstances where a parent may be seeking to pressure or manipulate a child. This would enable decision-makers to consider the implications of such conduct in relation to any views the child has expressed, as well as how the conduct might be weighted in determining a child's best interests. These measures include codifying the requirement for independent children's lawyers to meet with and seek the views of the child and establishing powers to improve the standards of family report writers. The courts will also continue to have discretion around how much weight to place on the child's views in the circumstances of the case. 17:40 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Minister, with all due respect, in response to your answer to my question, let's be very clear: no-one is proposing depriving children of their rights. That was (a) not the question I put and (b) certainly not the proposition I was referring to. So no-one is proposing depriving children of their rights. This is just about bad legislative drafting. It may well be it is unintentional, hence the amendment that the coalition has moved. So I ask you again, specifically in relation to the section and the way it is drafted. The provision says: … in determining what is in the child's best interests … the court must consider … …   …   … (b) any views expressed by the child … My question is: if a parent maliciously coaches a child to say, for example, something hurtful or untrue, under the current drafting—it is a very simple question, with a yes-or-no answer—the court would need to consider that, wouldn't it? 17:42 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The ALRC recommended removing the criteria stipulating the weight a court should give to a child's views. The simpler provision makes the importance of considering a child's views clearer on the face of the legislation. The court will still have discretion to consider a child's views in light of the child's particular circumstances and determine how much weight to place on them. It is anticipated the court would need to consider the child's views which are not relevant to the parenting proceedings and determining what is in the child's best interests. 17:42 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Can I just follow that through? You said it is anticipated that the court would need to consider— 17:42 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Sorry, Senator Cash. I'll just do that one again. The court will have discretion to consider a child's views in light of the child's particular circumstances and determine how much weight to place on them. It is not anticipated that the court would need to consider a child's views which are not relevant to the parenting proceedings and determining what is in the child's best interests. Apologies. 17:43 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Thank you for that clarification. The issue I have with the way it is drafted—and again this has been raised by way of feedback and certainly in submissions—is that it doesn't accord with the recommendations of professional bodies like the Law Council. What I put to you is that there is nothing in the drafting proposed by the government that requires a court to take into account the child's maturity, level of understanding or any other factors that it considers affect the weight the court should give to the child's views, is there? 17:44 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The court has the discretion to take into account relevant matters. 17:44 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Can you just take me to that section? 17:45 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland It's 60CC(2)(b): (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), the court must consider the following matters: …   …   … (b) any views expressed by the child; 17:45 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia That's even more confusing than when we first started out, and that's the whole point. 'The court must consider any views expressed by the child.' I think we both agree that is exactly the wording of section 60CC(2)(b). The point I'm making—and this is made in good faith, trying to make better what I believe is just bad drafting; that's all it is—is that 'must' means they must consider any views expressed by the child. Unfortunately—and this is where it goes to our amendment—there's nothing in the drafting proposed by the government that requires a court to take into account the child's maturity, level of understanding or any other factors in assessing the weight it should give to the child's view. We've agreed that there's not. The provision you just quoted, section 60CC(2)(b), does not expressly give the court any discretion. As I said, I'm doing this in good faith. If it is bad drafting, this is the reason we've put forward the amendment. In your evidence yesterday, you agreed that there would be unrepresented litigants coming before the court. To an unrepresented litigant reading the law, there's no express indication there, or even on the face of the provision, that there should be some attempt to assess or give weight to the child's views, is there? 17:46 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The objective of the bill is to simplify the existing complex framework of considerations when a court determines what is in the best interests of the child. As under the existing framework, the courts will still need to consider the views of the child and will continue to have discretion as to the weight they give those views. What is changing is the level of prescription about the considerations judicial officers must undertake and the detail they must provide in the reasoning for their decisions. This will ensure focus remains on what is in the best interests of a particular child and is in accordance with recommendation 5 of the ALRC report. 17:47 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia What do you say to organisations such as the Family Law Practitioners Association of Queensland, which called for the inclusion of a provision? Again, they're trying to make this legislation better; they're not disagreeing with the section. I'm saying there's bad drafting. They have called for the inclusion of a provision allowing the court to assess or give weight to a child's views. They said, 'This is significant as parents often take the view that a child's views should be determinative even at a young age.' 17:48 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland As I mentioned before and I've said in relation to this issue multiple times, it was a recommendation from the ALRC, and that is why the government adopted it. 17:48 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, I accept that answer. The provision in section 60CC(2)(b) says, 'In determining what is in the child's best interests the court must consider any views expressed by the child.' I hope that, in working through it quite genuinely, you may consider an amendment, or even supporting an amendment. To respond to, for example, the Family Law Practitioners Association of Queensland, you might consider putting in the legislation in explicit terms—for parents who are having to flick through this piece of legislation, who just don't know what they're doing and are looking at 'any views expressed by the child'—that the court has a discretion to take into account the child's maturity, level of understanding or any other factors that would affect the weight the court should give to the child's view. That is all I'm seeking the government to consider overnight. It just makes what I believe, and what others who have submitted believe, bad drafting better. And, if the whole point is simplification, this is a positive step in the right direction. The issue becomes, and we had a lengthy discussion yesterday: do you accept that—regardless of how it is explained, somewhere buried deep in the explanatory memorandum to a bill or, alternatively, online where you can always google it—what will affect most separating couples, and indeed almost anyone who opens a piece of legislation and tries to wade through it and who effectively acts in the shadow of the law, is the set of words on the page. 17:51 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Sorry, Senator Cash, I might ask you to repeat the question and provide a bit more clarity? 17:51 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The issue that I'm having is this: in good faith, I am putting forward an amendment and I'm asking the government to seriously consider a way to improve this drafting. The clause is there; I understand what the clause means. The issue I have and the issue others have is: it says, 'the court must consider any views expressed by the child'. What it doesn't do in that particular clause, to give clarity to parents who are actually looking at this, is literally then say to the court that 'the court is required to take into account the child's maturity level of understanding or any other factors that it considers affect the weight the court should give to the child's view', and we've established that's not expressly there. What I'm saying is: an unrepresented litigant opens a piece of legislation and they will only see the words. The words don't contain that additional part which says to them that the court can also take into account these additional factors such as the maturity level of understanding et cetera. So, what I'm asking is: do you accept that, when someone opens the legislation, all they're going to see is the words. The way it's written creates a problem, because the impression it creates is that the child's views must be given weight no matter how young or immature the child is, and this has a particularly strong impact on people who are acting in the shadow of the law. 17:52 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks, Senator Cash, for that clarification. As the explanatory memorandum notes: As with all of the general considerations in subsection 60CC(2), the court will have discretion to consider those views in light of the child's particular circumstances and determine how much weight to place on them. 17:53 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Now that we're talking about the children and their views, I'm of the understanding with this legislation that the ICL has the discretion of how often, when, where and if to actually talk to the child and hear what the child has to say. So, is it up to the discretion of the ICL to make this determination? 17:53 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The ICL would have to meet with the child before the final hearing. 17:54 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia So there's no follow-up over a period of time? Because family law disputes can go over quite a lengthy period of time. You have the child that is growing over this period of time—their maturity levels and separation from it. Yet, if the courts are going to take into consideration how the child feels about the matter, where they're going to live and with which parent, leaving it up to the ICL when they only need to meet with the child once before the final case—is that what you're telling me? They only need to meet with them once? 17:54 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The ICL has a discretion as to how regularly they meet with the child. 17:55 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland The child can ask for a support person but it will be decided by the ICL if they can get that support person. Is that correct? 17:55 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I think there's some complexity to that. The ICL can advise the court but it would be up to the judge to make that determination. 17:55 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I'm asking a clarifying question. I have asked Senator Hanson if I could have the call. Senator Hanson put to you that there is a requirement for the ICL to only meet once and you said, 'No, the ICL has the discretion'. In the current legislation, as not amended, can you please take me to the section where there is the discretion. 17:56 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland My understanding is it's not currently legislated; it's in the guidelines. 17:56 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Will you actually review this part of the legislation? It shouldn't be up to the discretion of the ICL. A lot of the complaints we heard in the inquiry from parents were that there was no communication between the ICL and the children they were supposed to be representing. That is a big problem. ICLs were biased towards one client or another, and the children's best interests were not taken into consideration. It should not be up to the discretion of the ICL to determine how often they meet with the child, and once is not good enough. Also, if they say they want a support person there with them, children have that right to ask for that support person, and it should not be up to the ICL to determine whether or not they allow that support person, because the ICL can turn around say, 'They are a hostile person.' Maybe that's not up to them; it is up to the child to determine if they want a support person. I would like to see this put in the legislation so that we are protecting, as you keep referring back to all the time, the best interests of the child. Therefore, this would be in the best interests of the child if they were allowed to call on the support person that they require. Will you review this in your legislation? 17:58 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland That is why we're putting in the legislation that the ICL must meet with them at least once. We have done that because we do think it is important. 17:58 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Sorry, but a lot of Australians wouldn't agree with you on that. As I said, court cases can go over a lengthy period of time. In the time they are in that courtroom, a child may go through from being seven up to about 10 years of age. Their opinions change. To say once only is a terrible response. That determination in this bill, I think, is poor. It is pathetic when you can't answer anything. My question was about the best interests of the child, and you tell me they only need to meet with the child once? Well, sorry, that's not good enough. I also want to go to my amendment while we are talking about the ICLs. My amendment on sheet 2131 is about ICLs needing to have better training. It says: (2A) If a lawyer has not previously been appointed as an independent children's lawyer, the court must not appoint that lawyer under subsection (2) unless the lawyer has undertaken training under an approved program. (2B) If a lawyer has previously been appointed as an independent children's lawyer and has regularly performed the functions of an independent children's lawyer for a period of 2 years or more, the court must not appoint that lawyer under subsection (2), unless: (a) a period of at least one year (the interim period ) has passed since the lawyer's last appointment as an independent children's lawyer ended; and (b) during the interim period the lawyer has undertaken further training under an approved program. I state this because a lot of these children's lawyers are just caught up in the system, and it's a revolving door. They just keep going with the same views. I believe that they should need updated training. Get them out of the system to do more training and then come back, so they are aware of the children's needs. A lot of these children's lawyers have not been required to even meet with the children. They've never met with the children. A lot of them wouldn't even have had the psychological training to understand a child or to interview a child to see how they feel about it. That's another thing that I need to ask you, Minister. What training do these ICLs have to have when they're dealing with children, and the psychological impacts on children, to make the best decisions to advise the courts on what's in the best interest of the child? 18:01 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland To be appointed as an ICL, it is mandatory to have a minimum of five years experience in family law and to have successfully completed National Legal Aid's ICL training program. The training program covers topics on child development, child trauma and other matters that are essential to ICL work. ICLs also undertake additional training as part of ongoing professional development and may access guidance materials and professional support in the court of their work. The Guidelines for Independent Children's Lawyers and the Independent Children's Lawyer Practice Standards and Guidelines also provide guidance to ICLs on how to undertake their duties and safely and appropriately engage with children. ICLs may work with support from social scientists, such as psychologists employed by the legal aid commissions, or may use other sources, such as a school counsellor or a psychologist, when meeting with children. This will depend on the child's needs. 18:02 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Minister, can I go to the point now about recordings. If a children's lawyer is going to have an interview, and if it's up to their discretion as to whether they'll allow the child to have a support person in that meeting, should that meeting with the child be recorded? All you're relying on is that children's lawyer, who is going to put in a report to the judge, which the judge really takes into strong consideration in making their determination. Wouldn't it be in the best interests for that recording to be made available to the parents so that they know what's been put before the judge? None of this is being recorded and reported back to the parents, and I think they should have the right to have a recording. 18:03 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland No, we don't believe so. We think that the ICL is there to represent the child, and recordings could be misused by the parties involved. 18:03 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland It's for the protection of the child, right? Also, why aren't interviews between parents and court reporters recorded for quality assurance? Parents should have a chance to rebut their reports. They can't do it if they can't see the reports. You have court reporters that are putting in their reports to the courts as well. Parents have no idea what is being put before the courts. Why shouldn't they have a right to have that recorded in these court reports? It's been known that some of these court reporters are not doing their jobs properly. They're putting their biased opinions to the court system, and the courts are ruling on things that are not true. It's been brought to my attention that a court reporter was putting in the same reports for different cases. They weren't even doing their jobs properly. They were just using information from a previous case. Shouldn't the parents have a right to be able to record the meetings that they have with the court reporters and have a copy of it to know what is being presented to the judge? 18:05 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The bill introduces a power for the government to regulate family report writers. 18:05 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland To regulate them? You didn't answer my question. Are you going to look at giving parents the right to record the interview with the court reporters so they know what is going to be said to the judge? They have every right to know what's being put across. 18:05 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland That's not something we're considering. 18:05 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland The Australian people will get a view of what you think about the family law system and their rights. I'm going to go to part 1 of schedule 2 of the bill. It's about line 9, where—correct me if I'm wrong—you're omitting (d), the costs order. Is that correct? 18:06 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland My understanding is that that was something that had been duplicated. In order to simplify the bill, it's been removed there, but it is still evident elsewhere in the Family Law Act. 18:06 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Where in the Family Law Act? My understanding is that you have deleted cost orders for the contravention of court orders. I understand you've deleted cost orders. If that's not the case, then tell me. 18:07 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland It's captured in section 117. 18:07 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Have you also deleted costs for false domestic violence allegations? 18:07 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I don't know if you're able to provide more clarity on that, Senator Hanson. There's one section in the new bill that deals with cost orders, which is section 117. 18:08 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I'll have a look at that. I want to go to back to this one, about the cost order in part 1 of schedule 2. It says: If the court finds that the respondent contravened the child-related order without having a reasonable excuse, the court may make any of the following orders (having regard to the seriousness of the contravention) … Part (c) of that says: an order requiring the respondent to compensate another person for certain costs incurred as a result of the contravention. You've taken that out. You've admitted it in your amendments. Basically, you're taking that out of the act; therefore, you've taken out cost orders for the contravention of the court. You took it out of that section. Isn't that correct? 18:09 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland As far as we're concerned, it's in section 117 of the act. It was a duplication. That's why it was removed. 18:09 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Could I get a clarification on the point that Senator Hanson's making? There's currently also a section 70NBE. That's in the act. I also want to explore some issues that Senator Hanson raised in relation to the ICL. There are certain things in the legislation we have before us. Senator Hanson raised some issues in relation to the ICL, particularly in relation to discretion. That's actually not in the legislation we currently have before us. That was the point Senator Hanson was actually making. You have then said it is in the guidelines. Senator Hanson might want to explore further what those guidelines are, where those guidelines are and when those guidelines are going to be printed. Is there an amendment being moved by the government to address this, because it actually was bad drafting and there was an issue with that particular section? You have circulated a government amendment that also deals with costs in relation to the enforcement of child related orders. I want to confirm something in relation to the answer Senator Chisholm gave. I understand it was incorrect and you've circulated a provision that removes proposed section 70NBE. 18:10 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks, Senator Cash. The removal of proposed section 70NBE was a recommendation of the Senate committee. It said: The committee recommends that the Australian government removes proposed section 70NBE from the Bill to avoid duplication of the court's discretionary power to award costs in family law matters. That recommendation is addressed through government amendments to remove proposed section 70NBE, amendment (23); adding a note referring to section 117 costs, amendment (16); and making the necessary consequential amendments as a result. 18:11 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia In terms of the questions Senator Hanson was pursuing on the independent children's lawyer, at this point in time as the legislation stands there is only a requirement to meet once. If I understand the evidence given by the minister, he said, no, there is actually a discretion. I sought clarification as to in which section of the act there currently is the discretion. The answer the minister gave was that it is in the guidelines. Can you take me through what those guidelines are please and can we have a copy of them to look at? 18:12 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks, Senator Cash. I'll, hopefully, provide some clarity. I attempted to say that it is currently in the guidelines but we're putting in the act for the ICL to meet with a child at least once. I thought I was clear on that, but I apologise if it wasn't as clear as it could be. The requirement for the ICL to engage with children codifies in legislation the existing expectations of practice that are expressed in the guidelines for independent children's lawyers that were developed by National Legal Aid and endorsed by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia and the Family Court of Western Australia. The legislative requirement will ensure that this engagement with a child occurs in every appropriate case and will facilitate national consistency in ICL practice. This will also ensure that the views of the child can be heard and considered when decisions are being made that impact them, consistent with article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. 18:13 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia There seems to be a misunderstanding. Senator Hanson was asking about requiring ICLs to meet more than once. Based on the current drafting of the legislation they are only required to meet once. The point Senator Hanson was making was that there may be a requirement to meet more than one time. Just so we're all on the same page here, can you take us to the wording that actually shows it's not a requirement to meet once but that you could meet— Senator CASH I0M That's what I'm trying to now find out because it has got very confusing very quickly. Can you find the section that's going to be put in and read it out just so that Senator Hanson and I are both confident that the question that she asked has been addressed correctly? If not then we can pursue it some more. Where in the legislation does it say that the ICL has discretion to meet more than once? 18:14 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The government has tabled amendment 33 to specify that the ICL retains the discretion to determine the timing, frequency and method of engagement with the children's best interests they are appointed to represent. So: (32) Schedule 4, heading, page 38 (line 1), at the end of the heading, add "and Hague Convention proceedings". (33) Schedule 4, item 2, page 38 (after line 16), after subsection 68LA(5A), insert: (5AA) The independent children's lawyer has discretion in relation to the following matters (subject to any order or direction of the court with respect to the matter, for example under paragraph 68L(2)(b) or paragraph (5D)(b) of this section): (a) when, how often and how meetings with the child take place; (b) when, how often and how the child is provided with an opportunity to express views. 18:15 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I've got that section here which you just mentioned. You've got a note on that which says: 'The independent children's lawyer must perform the following duties, not necessarily at the same time: meet with the child, provide the child with an opportunity to express any views in relation to the matters to which the proceedings relate. Note: a person cannot require a child to express the child's views in relation to any matter under section 60CE.' What do you mean by that—'You cannot require a child to express the child's views in relation to any matter'? 18:16 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland My understanding is that it basically means that you can't force a child to talk. 18:16 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I've got a lot of documents here. I'm just a layperson. I'm not a lawyer. But can you actually just tell me what 60CE is? Can you give me some guidance and read it out to me—and not only to me; the public need to know that as well. 18:17 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland My understanding is: that's in the existing act, and we're not amending it. We'll try and come back to you before the end of tonight, Senator Hanson. 18:17 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I want to go to another one of the amendments I want to put up, which we touched on yesterday, about fifty-fifty shared parental responsibility. Under that, I've made reference to the United Nations as well, if you have a look at that. We touched on that yesterday. It's on sheet 2135. It states: Presumption of equal shared parental responsibility (3A) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), the court must apply a presumption that it is in the child's best interests for the child's parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child. …   …   … (3B) The presumption does not apply if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a parent of the child (or a person who lives with a parent of the child) has engaged in: (a) abuse of the child or another child who, at the time, was a member of the parent's family (or that other person's family); or (b) family violence. (3C) The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that satisfies the court that it would not be in the best interests of the child for the child's parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child. That is actually in my amendment. But I also have this note: Paragraph 60B(b) provides that it is an object of this Part to give effect to the Convention on the Rights of the Child done at New York on 20 November 1989. This includes articles 7, 9 and 18 of the Convention which relate to: (a) a child's right to know and be cared for by both parents; and (b) a child's right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis; and (c) the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child. There was a survey done on a father's impact on child development. We all know who are the main people who really are upset about this. I'm not disregarding mothers, because they've been denied the right to see their children too, but a lot of my grievances are coming from fathers who, for what they feel is no apparent reason, are denied the right to have contact with their children or see their children at all. They've actually been broken by this. These are loving families. There's no violence—or there may be false accusations brought against them which haven't been proven—but they are denied the right to see their children. A blog article entitled 'A father's impact on child development', which is on the website all4kids.org, has the subheading '10 facts about father engagement'. I'll just read out a couple: Children who feel a closeness to their father are: twice as likely as those who do not to enter college or find stable employment after high school, 75% less likely to have a teen birth, 80% less likely to spend time in jail, and half as likely to experience multiple depression symptoms. The other point is: The quality of the father-child relationship matters more than the specific amount of hours spent together. Non-resident fathers can have positive effects on children's social and emotional well-being, as well as academic achievement and behavioral adjustment. Elsewhere, the article says: According to the 2007 UNICEF report on the well-being of children in economically advanced nations, children in the U.S., Canada and the U.K. rank extremely low in regard to social and emotional well-being in particular. Many theories have been explored to explain the poor state of our nation's children. However, a factor that has been largely ignored, particularly among child and family policymakers, is the prevalence and devastating effects of father absence in children's lives. For starters, studies repeatedly show that children without fathers positively present in the home suffer greatly. Another report says: "It is important for the majority of children to continue the involvement of both parents after family separation," Professor Chisholm wrote. "It is right that the legislation should stress this, because, it seems, it was once assumed that it is enough for children to have one involved parent with the other (typically the father) providing financial support and weekend entertainment. "It is important that the legislation should not be seen to support that assumption." Professor Chisholm argued that the clause should not be repealed but rather reworded to direct a court to "presume that it is in the child's best interests that both parents continue to have parental responsibility, unless it considers that this would not be in the child's best interests in the circumstances of the case". The suggestion comes after a 2019 Australian Law Reform Commission— the people you refer to as those from whom your legislation came— recommended the provision not be abolished but rather reworded to allow "joint decision making about long-term issues". Professor Parkinson, who was a key adviser to the Howard government … warned the government's proposed changes would have damaging consequences for parents, children, courts and social cohesion. You're proposing to take out fifty-fifty shared parental responsibility, so you're going to allow the courts to say that whoever gets the child most of the time is going to have complete say over this. It goes far beyond this. Parents should have an involvement in their children's lives. It goes beyond even what school they go to and their education. It also goes to our nation's problem with gender dysphoria. Are you going to allow one parent to have complete control over the child and say whether they can go and have puberty blockers or mutilation or whatever, while the other parent has no say in it whatsoever? That's virtually what you are doing here. You are taking away a parent's right to have a say over their child's future and their wellbeing, and you are going to let the courts decide this. Children are brought into this world by two parents. They only have one mum and they only have one dad. They can have step-parents, by all means, but they only have one mum and one dad. You are denying these parents their rights, by taking this out of the legislation. You are going against the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. You are denying parents their constitutional right under section 51(xxii) of our Constitution. This legislation, as far as I'm concerned, is unconstitutional and, based on section 51(xxii) of the Constitution, it could be challenged in the High Court by parents out there who are denied the right to see their children for no real reason. Minister, will you look at my amendment that I've put forward to again include in the legislation the fifty-fifty shared parental responsibilities of the parents? 18:25 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks, Senator Hanson. We will be opposing your amendment. The proposed amendment does not address the misunderstanding associated with the terminology, that equal shared parental responsibility means equal time rather than relating to joint decision-making on major long-term issues. Further, this amendment does not address the fact that the evidence shows that the presumption is currently regularly applied in the presence of safety concerns, despite the legislation specifying it should not apply in cases of abuse of a child or family violence. The retention of any presumption detracts from the focus of the best interests of the child. In terms of some of the other broader points you made, Senator Hanson, I disagree with a lot of it and I don't think it did your arguments any favours to go to some of the culture wars, as you did. The intention of these amendments is not to see less custody for fathers. What is changing is a formulaic reasoning process which has contributed to a misconception that parents are entitled to equal time with a child rather than focusing on what is in the child's best interest. Where it is in the child's best interest, the outcome will be that both parents will be making decisions jointly and in equal time or a substantial and significant time arrangement. For a small number of children, it will be in their best interests that one parent will be making decisions and that there is with the other parent. These reforms will ensure that the best interests of the individual child are considered. 18:27 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Minister, what do you say to Professor Chisholm and Professor Parkinson and their comments and, of course, the comments from the ALRC, who reckoned that it shouldn't be taken out of the legislation and that they believe it just needs rewording. As I've said to you, it needs rewording; not to be taken out. 18:28 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks, Senator Hanson. The government's approach is that the full repeal is the most direct approach to addressing misunderstanding about this issue amongst the general public. Any presumptions about parental responsibility can take the focus away from the child's needs. They can encourage parents to negotiate in their own interest or to agree arrangements despite their safety concerns because they think this is required by law. They are also an additional step in the court's decision-making process, adding time and cost to proceedings. None of the major inquiries into the family law reform have supported the presumption in its current form. It is widely misunderstood as creating an entitlement for parents to have equal fifty-fifty time with their children. The joint select committee recommended the government urgently release exposure draft legislation to amend section 61DA to address the current misunderstanding that equal shared parental responsibility equates to equal time with children. The 2017 House Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs inquiry into a better family law system to support and protect those affected by family violence heard substantial evidence that the distinction between responsibility and time is not well understood, influencing both the culture within the judiciary and the assumptions of separating parents when agreeing to consent orders. The committee recommended that the Australian Law Reform Commission consider developing substantial amendments to part 7 of the Family Law Act, including removing the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. The ALRC suggested rewording it to be 'a presumption of joint decision-making about major long-term issues'; however, the government considers that renaming the presumption would not sufficiently address the safety concerns associated with this application. For example, the Australian Institute of Family Studies reports from 2015 and 2022 show that orders for shared parental responsibility are made in the majority of litigated matters and in the presence of safety concerns. This is a strong indicator that the presumption is not working as intended even when matters are determined by a court. 18:30 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Minister, I don't agree with what you've just said. The fact is that the presumption of parents is that they have a fifty-fifty right. Isn't it funny that one day both parents can be in a house looking after their child and the child's best interests, and then, just because there's been a separation and they're not living under the one roof anymore, you want to deny the other parent the presumption that they can have that as a starting point. If it was a starting point, at least they'd get fifty-fifty shared responsibility in parenting rights with their children. But all of a sudden that's out the door. It's: 'Sorry. You moved out of the house. You've lost your rights to be a parent to that child anymore.' Things were alright the day before, but within a matter of hours you want to take that full responsibility away from them. How are these parents supposed to feel? Shouldn't you give them some hope that they are going to at least be listened to? Your bill is taking that right away from them. You talk about the safety of the child. All of this is presented in the courts. This is going to be presented by the lawyers. If there are real concerns for the wellbeing of the child, they will be taken into consideration by the courts. These parents should at least go into the courtroom thinking that they're going to have a fair hearing, that they will have some time with their children. I don't know if you have many people contact you about the problems they've had with the family law courts and being denied the right to see their children. I've got fathers who haven't seen their kids for years. I've even had some mothers contact me to say they can't see their children. I can tell you about one case. A woman contacted my office and said, 'The ICL'—this is an ICL, mind you; they can be biased—'declared a mother to be negligent because she hadn't had a COVID vaccination and neither had her two teenage children.' Do you know what the ICL's recommendation was? The ICL reported to the court that she was a negligent mother, and, hence, the court ordered that she couldn't see the children. Even to this day she can't see the children. It was the ICL's decision, just because she hadn't had a vax and the teenagers didn't want to have the vaccination, and she was denied the right to see her children. That's why I'm saying that the ICLs should be recorded. The parents should know what's being said. They have a right then to defend their case before the courts. They don't know the reports that are being put up before the judge. They don't know what they should be answering to the judge in some sort of defence. This woman has been denied the right to see her children based on an ICL's biased opinion as to whether or not someone should have a vaccine. I think that's absolutely disgraceful. That's why I said to you that it should not be at the discretion of anyone. It should be in this legislation. People have a right to have a recording of the court reporters and of the ICLs with the children. They have a right to know what's being said behind closed doors. Some of these biased people with their own views are not giving parents a fair go in the family law court system. That's why we have more problems going on now, because people are distraught. Suicides are happening. This is why we have the harm that is happening among males and females who are fed up with the family law court system. They're finding no justice there. That's why we have the problems that are happening, the murders that are happening. It is all because of the family law courts. It is because of sheer frustration. They've had a gutful of it and they can't take it anymore. Until you get this right and give people a fair go, you're not going to change anything. You're making it worse. Minister, I don't think I'm going to get a different answer out of you, so I'm going to go to another section. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 298839 Senator Hanson, please remember to direct your questions through the chair and not refer to members in this chamber as 'you'. Senator HANSON BK6 Oh dear! I want to go to section 65DAAA, the reconsideration of final parenting orders. It says at (2): (b) whether there is any new material available that was not available to the court that made the final parenting order. You took out the word 'new'. Can I ask why? 18:36 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks, Senator Hanson. Paragraph 65DAAA(2)(b) of the bill stipulates that, when deciding whether it will be the best interests of the child to consider a final parenting order, the court may take into account whether there is any new material available that was not available to the court that made the final decision. The proposed amendment removes the word 'new' from this subparagraph in response to stakeholder feedback that the inclusion of 'new' could lead to legal arguments about what 'new' means. This amendment makes it clear the court may have regard to material that was in existence at the time of the court proceedings but was not considered by the court at the time. 18:36 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I have a line of questioning, if Senator Hanson doesn't mind, in relation to the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. I just want to clarify some of the responses given to Senator Hanson. The evidence the minister gave was that none of the major inquiries recommended the full repeal of the presumption. Can I please confirm that. 18:37 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The Henderson inquiry recommended the ALRC consider repealing. 18:37 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Can I just confirm that the ALRC recommendation was that it should be rewritten or redrafted. 18:38 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Sorry, Senator Cash, for the time taken there. The government's approach on full repeal is that is the most direct approach to addressing misunderstandings about the issue amongst the general public. Any presumptions about parental responsibility can take the focus away from the child's needs and can encourage parents to negotiate in their own interests or to agree to agreements despite their safety concerns because they think this is required by law. There is also an additional step in the court's decision-making process adding time and cost to proceedings. None of the major inquiries into the family law system have supported the presumption in its current form. It is widely misunderstood as creating an entitlement for parents to have equal, fifty-fifty time. I mentioned that the joint select committee recommended the government urgently release the exposure draft. I mentioned the 2017 House Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs inquiry, which recommended that the Australian Law Reform Commission consider developing substantial amendments to part 7 of the Family Law Act, including removing the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. The ALRC suggested rewording it to a presumption of joint decision-making about major long-term issues; however, the government considers that the renaming of the presumption would not sufficiently address the safety concerns associated with its application. I then mentioned the Australian Institute of Family Studies reports from 2015 and 2022, which show that orders for shared parental responsibilities are made in the majority of litigated matters, and in the presence of safety concerns. This is a strong indicator that the presumption is not working as intended, even where matters are determined by a court. 18:40 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia To summarise the point, none of the major inquiries have supported the presumption in its current form. The point is equally made that none of those inquiries recommended repealing it either. That is the point that both Senator Hanson and the opposition will continue to make. It is also why we have moved an amendment in that regard. In terms of the presumption, and exploring further Senator Hanson's line of questioning, the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was one of the key recommendations of what was a bipartisan and unanimous report, titled Every picture tells a story, handed down in 2003 by the committee chaired by Kay Hull AO. I want to read an extract from the committee report. At 2.56, it said: … the disappointment with the implementation of the 1995 reforms to the FLA has been a failure in practice, particularly in court outcomes, to match the expectations of Parliament for shared parenting. The committee believes that the Parliamentary intention could be significantly reinforced if courts were required to consider the presumption of shared responsibility in each case that they consider. Noting that it was, as I stated and as was recognised widely at the time, a bipartisan and unanimous report, does the government accept that in making those recommendations the committee did so after careful analysis of many years of evidence? 18:42 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I want to get clarity about which government decisions you're talking about. Are you talking about the decisions that were made in 1997? 18:42 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia In 2003, in a landmark report that was heralded as such, the bipartisan and unanimous Every picture tells a story report was released by a committee chaired by Kay Hull AO. As I said, it was bipartisan and unanimous. I quoted an extract from the committee's report. The reforms themselves were implemented in 2006. The point in relation to that report was: does the government accept that in making the recommendations in the bipartisan, unanimous Every picture tells a story report in 2003, which were ultimately implemented in 2006, the committee did so after careful analysis of many years of evidence? 18:43 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I think it would be a fair conclusion that was made at the time, but since that has come in—given that was now over 20 years ago—stakeholders have suggested that it's not adequate in modern times. 18:44 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, I don't think there's any dispute that the presumption itself needed to be rewritten, clarified and simplified. The point that Senator Hanson and I are exploring is the fact that, in this legislation, the government repeals it in its entirety. Do you now accept, as the Labor Party did in 2003, that the presumption was a response to the outcomes of many, many years of Family Court cases that were decided without any kind of legislative guidance on the value of shared parenting? 18:44 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I'm not trying to be difficult, Senator Cash. Obviously, I was not in parliament at the time and was not aware of the debate that was happening around that legislation. 18:45 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia For the record, I would have thought that there were advisers here from the Attorney-General's Department who could assist you in answering that question. Actually, it was a landmark report. It was landmark because it was unanimous and bipartisan and both parties of government came together to produce fundamental changes to the family law system. Those particular recommendations were the result of the outcomes of many, many years of Family Court cases decided without any kind of legislative guidance on the value of shared parenting. In March of this year, the Attorney-General published a piece in the Herald Sun, the Daily Telegraph, the Advertiser and the Courier Mail, in which he said: … the Howard government inserted the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility in the Family Law Act. This ill-advised step has created ongoing confusion and delivered prolonged litigation and conflict. It is time to repair the damage. I want to compare Mr Dreyfus's comments with the research published in 2014 by Professor Patrick Parkinson on the impact of the reforms made by the Howard government in 2006, which, as I said, inserted a presumption of equal shared parental responsibility based on a landmark report that was both unanimous and bipartisan. At the time, Professor Parkinson was a Professor of Law at the University of Sydney. He'd been president of the International Society of Family Law, the chair of the Family Law Council and the chair of the Ministerial Taskforce on Child Support. His detailed analysis of the impacts of the reforms, published in the Dalhousie Law Journal in 2014, looked at the careful balance to those reforms, including the protections against violence and the increased use of mediation. This was one of the analyses: The total number of applications for final orders in children's matters (including cases where there were also property issues) fell from 18,752 in 2005-2006 to about 12,815 in 2010-2011, a fall of thirty-two per cent over the five years following 2006— When the landmark reforms and the landmark amendments were made to the Family Law Act. So, the Attorney-General's claim, which he uses to justify the changes, don't accord with the evidence. Do they? 18:48 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I disagree with your assessment there. I think your view of the Attorney-General is colouring your analysis there, Senator Cash. The removal of the presumption is supported by evidence that shows that orders for shared parental responsibility are made in the majority of litigated matters and in the presence of these family violence and safety concerns. The Institute of Family Studies' research findings supported the removal of the presumption. As the Australian Institute of Family Studies states in their Senate submission: The AIFS Evaluation research, together with the AIFS Compliance and Enforcement Project, indicates how shared parental responsibility is unworkable and, in many cases, unsafe, with the application of a presumption in favour of joint parental responsibility compounding the existing risks for families accessing the court and other formal resolution pathways. Stakeholder feedback on the exposure draft also reaffirmed that this misconception can lead to vulnerable parties agreeing to unsafe and unfair parenting arrangements and can provide ongoing avenues for continued coercive and controlling behaviour between partners where family violence is an issue. 18:49 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia With all due respect, the point here is that the Attorney-General has misled the public about the impact of the Howard government's reforms. They are not my assessments; they are the assessments of Professor Parkinson, based on the available data. The Attorney-General clearly stated, in his articles in the newspapers that I referred to: … the Howard government inserted the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility in the Family Law Act. This ill-advised step has created ongoing confusion and delivered prolonged litigation and conflict. It is time to repair the damage. But when you actually look at the evidence in relation to what occurred after the changes were made, as I said, you see that there was actually a fall of 32 per cent over the five years following 2006. So I would ask anyone reading the Hansard to make up their mind, purely by looking at the evidence that is available, as to whether or not the Attorney-General has misled the Australian public in his pieces. I will continue with the Attorney-General's rationale for removing the presumption against equal shared parental responsibility as he explained it. Although he was critical of the 2006 reforms for delivering, in his words, 'prolonged litigation and conflict', that, in fact, was not borne out by the evaluation of the reforms conducted by the Australian Institute of Family Studies in 2009. That research, prepared by Kaspiew and others and published in December 2009, concluded, among other things, that, while safety concerns were present for some, the Howard-era care reforms resulted in, 'better quality inter-parental relationships'. It also found: The philosophy of shared parental responsibility was overwhelmingly supported by parents, legal system professionals and family relationship service professionals. …   …   … The majority of parents with shared care-time arrangements thought that the arrangements were working well both for parents and the child. So, again, you have a quote from the Attorney-General but then you have evidence. I put it to you, again, that the Attorney-General's explanation of the need for these reforms does not reflect that evidence, does it? 18:51 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I disagree with that, Senator Cash. As I talked through before, the removal of the presumption is supported by evidence that shows that the orders for shared parental responsibility are made in the majority of litigated matters and in the presence of these family violence and safety concerns. As I mentioned, I think the Australian Institute of Family Studies research finding and their Senate submission go to that. Stakeholder feedback on the exposure draft also reaffirmed this misconception can lead to vulnerable parties agreeing to unsafe and unfair parenting arrangements. 18:52 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Can I just confirm something? We have evidence here. We have what the Attorney-General and we have the evidence which, in my humble submission, does not support the position of the Attorney-General. Just to be clear, though, I don't think anyone is disputing that the drafting at present leads to confusion. I don't think that is in any way disputed, and that reform to equal shared parental responsibility is warranted. Again, I do not think that is disputed. What we're putting on the record here is that the justification that the Attorney-General put to the Australian people does not accord with the data that I have read into the Hansard. I just want to turn to something else that the Attorney-General told the Australian public, again when explaining the need for the reforms. He said: The new laws are informed by the more than two dozen inquiries into the family law system over the past nine years, including the 2019 Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry and the 2021 Joint Select Committee inquiry. If we could now go through and look at some of the reports over past years that deal with the presumption, seeing that the Attorney likes to rely on reports, the first thing to note is that, when considering equal shared parental responsibility, the Attorney conveniently excluded the reports handed down when Labor was last in power. In 2009, the Hon. Justice Richard Chisholm released the Family courts violence review. Did the Attorney take that report into account? 18:54 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The joint select committee considered all previous reports, listed in the back of their report, and then their ultimate recommendation was that the government urgently release the exposure draft relating to advocating the removal of this to change the provision. 18:55 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I also want to go to this 50/50 shared parental responsibility. I'm getting mixed reactions from you about some of the things you've said about getting recommendations from the Australian Law Reform Commission. Correct me if I'm wrong: you repeated what I said there—that they believe that it should not be abolished but, rather, be reworded to allow joint decision-making about long-term issues. Is that correct, Minister? 18:55 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland In terms of what the ALRC put forward, my understanding is that that is correct. 18:55 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland If you've actually taken a lot of the ALRC's recommendations and put it into this bill and they've said don't take it out but just reword it, where did you get the advice to actually take it out and, really, for what reasons? 18:56 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland As I mentioned, it was from some of the evidence that was given to the joint select committee that they made a recommendation on. The government's decision was that a full repeal has the advantages of being simpler and more child focused. It means that there will be no presumption of a particular outcome and that the court can focus on assessing the particular best interests of the child in making their decision. 18:56 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Evidence was given to you by Professors Parkinson and Chisholm, other people and the ALRC, and these are professionals in this field. You've taken it from a joint House inquiry into this. I can tell you, Minister, that I was deputy chair of a Senate inquiry. We did haven't the expertise. We didn't understand. We were just guided by the evidence that was given to us to try and understand it. Here you have professional people that have advised you that it should not have been taken out completely but possibly reworded. With regard to this, at what point did you have discussions with the chief justice or the deputy chief justice of the family law courts to get their opinions? 18:57 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The government acknowledges that rewording the presumption was suggested by the ALRC in light of the significant community misunderstandings of the provisions as equating in equal time. However, the proposed amendments do not address other fundamental concerns that have been raised by stakeholders such as the Law Council of Australia, the Family Law Council, National Legal Aid and Women's Legal Services. Any presumption of this nature would detract from a clear focus on the best interests of the child. As the president of the Law Council of Australia, Mr Murphy, stated: Presumptions unreasonably fetter the discretion of the court, and provisions around parenting should not prioritise or favour any particular parenting arrangement, as is currently the case. He said that 'parental responsibility should be a matter for the court to determine' in each most commonly raised and relevant decision-making matter in family law. 18:58 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland My question was: what discussions did you have with the Chief Justice of the Federal Circuit and Family Court or the deputy chief justice—or with any justice of the family law courts, for that matter? What discussions, communications or advice did you receive from them with regard to this? We're talking about people who deal in this issue. That's their livelihoods. That's what they deal with constantly all the time. I want to hear what discussions you've had with them to come to this conclusion. 18:59 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks, Senator Hanson. The courts were consulted as part of the discussions that go on between them and the department in drafting the legislation. 18:59 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland My direct question was about fifty-fifty shared parental responsibilities. What discussions did you, the minister or the department have with the Chief Justice with regard to fifty-fifty parental responsibility being taken out of this legislation in full? 19:00 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I answered that question, Senator Hanson. 19:00 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Minister, you didn't answer that question at all. It was a specific question. You haven't told me. I asked you: have you had specific discussions? In this matter here, your Prime Minister has said: 'We are going to be open and honest. We are going to have communication. We are going to be out there and let you know.' You've taken out one of the most important pieces of this legislation—giving people fifty-fifty parental responsibility. The people that I believe I probably listen to more than the Law Council of Australia. Groups for women's rights and all the rest of it, like domestic violence organisations, also have self-interest. I want to hear from the judges themselves. They're dealing with this in the courts day in, day out. They are the ones I would take advice from and listen to. But you clearly haven't asked them the question or had consultation with them to hear their advice. Minister, again I'll ask you the same question. What discussions have you had with the Chief Justice of the family law court with regard to taking this fifty-fifty shared parental responsibility out of the legislation? 19:01 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The department consulted with a wide range of stakeholders in person, such as the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the Family Court of Western Australia, the Family Law Council and former judges, as well as practitioners, academics, peak legal representative bodies, legal and family relationship service providers, women's and children's safety advocates and First Nations organisations. 19:02 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Minister, can you actually give this chamber a copy of their recommendations on this legislation, please? 19:02 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland There are avenues for you to pursue that through the Senate, Senator Hanson. 19:02 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland There are not avenues for me to pursue it. This bill is going to be passed tomorrow. It needs to be answered now. You said there that they were consulted. I'm asking you for evidence of this. I want to see what they've advised with regard to this certain piece of legislation here and fifty-fifty shared parental responsibility. I want to see the recommendations they gave to the government. I'm asking you to present that to this chamber before this bill is passed. 19:03 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland As is usual with discussions between the department and the courts, they are confidential. 19:03 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I'm gobsmacked by that answer. I cannot believe it. We're talking about the most important part of this legislation, which my phones have been ringing hot about, and you're telling me it's confidential. We're not going to hear what they have to say about it? I think that is a poor answer on your behalf to the people of Australia. You won the election—well, you didn't win it, on 32 per cent, but you run the government—and the whole fact is that you're telling me that you're open and honest with the people of Australia? You were going to lead a government that would be there for the people—that would be accountable to the people. I'm asking you for something that's important to the people of Australia, and you can't give it. Do you know why? I believe it's because it's not there. I think you have misled this chamber. I don't think you're being up-front about it and I don't think the chief justice was actually consulted. I tell you what, if they had consulted the minister, if they made this comment about consultation and advice then that would have been on the record because it would be very important. If they had stated that it should be taken out then you would be forthcoming with it, but you are not, so I don't believe that you're being up-front about this. You can reflect on that unless you want to answer me. I'd be quite happy to hear your answer to that one. Have you got anything to say, Minister? The TEMPORARY CHAIR 298839 Senator Hanson, if you have a question, you sit down, then I call the minister. Please don't make personal comments directed to the people in the chamber. 19:05 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I answered the question. 19:05 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Just pursuing the line of questioning that Senator Hanson is going down in terms of the evidence that's actually been taken into account by the government in coming to its determination that, instead of accepting the recommendation from the Australian Law Reform Commission, it would repeal, in total, the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. I have referred to the 2009 report, the Family Courts Violence Review, released by the Honourable Justice Richard Chisholm. Your answer to my question, 'Did the Attorney take the report into account?' was that the joint select committee had taken into consideration reports as listed. The issue I have is the Attorney-General can't have taken that report into account because the way Justice Chisholm described his recommendations was as follows: These recommendations are intended to retain the essential ideas of the Hull Committee in 2003, while removing difficulties and unintended consequences that appear to have occurred as a result of the way the original idea has been translated into legislation. In fact, recommendation 3.3 of Justice Chisholm's report said that the provision that sets out the presumption'—Senator Hanson will like this—'should be retained and amended.' But the Attorney expressly decided to ignore advice given to his government when it was last in power. Isn't that correct? 19:07 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland What I would say is a lot has changed since 2009. I should declare that, to my knowledge, I'm no relation to Professor Chisholm. Professor Chisholm, as you've referred to, has expressed support for the approach of the repeal through evidence to the Senate inquiry. 19:08 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Can we look then at some of the other reports that the Attorney may have considered before implying to the Australian people that his decision to remove the presumption was informed by inquiries into the family law system. In 2014, the Productivity Commission released the Access to Justice Arrangements report. Was the decision to remove the presumption a decision the Attorney made because of a recommendation in that report? 19:08 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I don't have that report in front of me. I'm sure you'd understand that. I'll try to get a copy of that and try to come back to you. 19:08 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I'll save you the trouble. It wasn't. The report didn't make a recommendation to repeal the presumption. I now go to the 2015 report by the Special Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence in Queensland, led by former Governor-General Dame Quentin Bryce. That report was called Not Now, Not Ever—Putting an End to Domestic Violence and Family Violence in Queensland. Was the decision to remove the presumption a decision the Attorney made because of a recommendation in that report? 19:09 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I can recall that report coming down as a Queensland senator. What I do know, and as I've said when talking about this issue with you and Senator Hanson, is a full repeal has the advantages of being simpler and more child-focused. It means that there will be no presumption of a particular outcome, and the court can focus on assessing what is in the child's best interests. 19:09 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The point of the line of questioning that both Senator Hanson and I are pursuing is in relation to the body of evidence that was taken into consideration by the Attorney-General in making his decision—because it would appear that it was his decision—to remove the presumption in its entirety. Based on the evidence, that decision would appear to go against the weight of the evidence. In particular the Australian Law Reform Commission recommended that it be redrafted. As I said, we all accept that it needs to be redrafted, but there is considerable angst in relation to the removal of the presumption altogether and the fact that, as we move through report after report after report, the Attorney-General has not acted consistent with recommendations of previous reports. We'll now go to the body of evidence and look at the two reports by the Family Law Council on families with complex needs in 2015 and 2016. Was the decision to remove the presumption a decision the Attorney made because of a recommendation in either of those reports? 19:11 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks, Senator Cash. As you've probably worked out, I'm not aware of those ones. Again, I will try to get a copy of those and come back to you—or you may be able to provide the answer shortly. As I mentioned before, the removal of the presumption is supported by evidence that shows that orders for shared parental responsibility are made in the majority of litigated matters and in the presence of family violence and safety concerns. I mentioned the Australian Institute of Family Studies research findings. They supported the removal of the presumption, as they stated in their Senate submission. Again, stakeholder feedback on the exposure draft also reaffirmed that this misconception can lead to vulnerable parties agreeing to unsafe and unfair parenting arrangements and can provide ongoing avenues for continued coercive and controlling behaviour between partners where family violence is an issue. 19:12 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia We will continue to go through the reports. The answer is: it wasn't, because the reports didn't make a recommendation to repeal the presumption. The reason I'm going through it report by report is that we're talking about a body of evidence here and the weight of evidence. The point that I'm making—and I believe Senator Hanson, through the evidence she is reading into the record, is also making—is that the Attorney has represented to the Australian people that there were more than two dozen inquiries into the family law system and has implied that the repeal of the presumption was supported by those inquiries. Based on the evidence that I'm going through—and we will continue to go through more evidence—this is, I argue, both untrue and misleading. We'll now look at the final report of the COAG Advisory Panel on Reducing Violence against Women and their Children from 2016. Again that was considered an incredibly important report at the time it was handed down given it was a COAG, Council of Australian Governments, advisory panel. I ask again: was the decision to remove the presumption a decision the Attorney made because of a recommendation in that report? 19:13 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks, Senator Cash. I haven't actually seen that COAG report and I can't recall it, but, as I mentioned before, stakeholder feedback on the exposure draft also reaffirmed that there is a misconception that can lead to vulnerable parties agreeing to unsafe and unfair parenting arrangements and can provide ongoing avenues for continued coercive and controlling behaviour between partners where family violence is an issue. 19:14 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I am sure Senator Hanson when she seeks the call again will be able to give you stakeholder feedback to the exact opposite effect. What we're establishing here as we go through report after report after report—some of them bipartisan and unanimous and, in fact, heralded at the time as landmark reports—is the true basis for the repeal. Everybody agrees that it needs to be redrafted. Everybody agrees that it needs to be simplified. But the government has gone much further than that. It has been redrafted completely to remove it, so it is no longer there. We are establishing that the true basis for the repeal is an ideologically motivated policy decision of this Attorney-General. If we could now go to the 2016 Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence—and I'm more than happy for you to ask the more than capable advisers that are in the box, who, I'm assuming, were responsible for the drafting of the legislation and, as such, would have taken into consideration these reports. Was the decision to remove the presumption a decision the Attorney made because of a recommendation in that report? 19:15 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I'll try and get an answer when we've got access to the report, but, as I mentioned, the removal of the presumption is supported by evidence that shows that orders for shared parental responsibility are made in a majority of litigated matters. I talked through the Australian Institute of Family Studies and their submission. I'd also mention the stakeholder feedback around the exposure draft and also the work of the joint committee that recommended it as well. 19:15 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, the body of evidence that Senator Hanson and I are presenting would seem to be mounting in favour of: there was not a recommendation from any of these reports to actually repeal the presumption in its entirety. I'll now turn to the 2017 inquiry by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs. I won't ask; I'll just tell—that seems to be lot easier, because we don't seem to have the answers with us. That report itself also didn't make a recommendation to repeal the presumption. In fact, what the committee recommended was as follows, at recommendation 19: The Committee recommends that the Australian Law Reform Commission, as part of its current review of the family law system, develops proposed amendments to Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), and specifically, that it consider removing the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. So, to be clear, the recommendation of the committee was not to remove the presumption but to expressly ask the ALRC whether it should be removed—two fundamentally different concepts. Is that correct? 19:17 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland My understanding, from that report, is that there were stakeholders who made clear that the presumption should be repealed. 19:17 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Where is that reflected in recommendation 19? It reads: The Committee recommends that the Australian Law Reform Commission— this is the actual recommendation; if there's another recommendation that I don't have in front of me, please feel free to read it out, but where is what you just said recommended in this: The Committee recommends— that's the recommendation: 'recommends'; this is what they recommended— that the Australian Law Reform Commission, as part of its current review of the family law system, develops proposed amendments to Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), and specifically— it's quite a specific recommendation— that it consider removing the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. All I'm asking you to confirm for the Hansard record is: the recommendation of the committee was not to remove the presumption—please take into consideration recommendation 19; I'm happy for the advisers to take it into consideration—but to expressly and specifically ask the ALRC whether it should be removed. Is that correct? 19:18 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland What I mentioned was not recommendations but stakeholder feedback, which said that it should be repealed, Senator Cash. In terms of the report, I'm happy to see if we can find an answer on that and come back to you. 19:19 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Well, Senator Hanson, the good news is that committees can make recommendations, but we don't need to refer to the recommendations, just refer to the stakeholder feedback that backs in the position that the government takes. So we can just throw out all of the reports and the recommendations, as long as we can find a submission—and that's easy to find; the government just directs someone to put in a submission that supports the government's position. This committee has taken a very, very bizarre twist tonight because it would appear that it doesn't matter what report Senator Hanson and I put to you, if you don't like the recommendation you'll just find a submission that supported the view you've put forward, even though in the final recommendation it does the exact opposite. I would then put to you that, despite the implication in the Attorney's words, the decision to remove the presumption was not informed by the recommendation. I'll make it a rhetorical question, because you're clearly not going to refer to the actual recommendation. You'll refer to submissions that back in the Attorney-General's position. That's not what the recommendations said. That was a recommendation that was directed to the ALRC, and it actually followed through, as Senator Hanson knows. On 14 March 2018, it released an issues paper that expressly referenced the committee's suggestion of removing the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility as a potential reform to the decision-making framework in part 7 of the Family Law Act. But, in fact, after the ALRC did its due diligence, in its report it recommended the wording of the presumption be changed, and it even prepared draft legislation to do so. Isn't that correct? Please ask the advisers. I don't expect you to know. 19:21 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I think I've already mentioned that the ALRC suggested rewording it to be a presumption of joint decision-making about major long-term issues. However, the government considers that renaming the presumption would not sufficiently address the safety concerns associated with its application. For example, the Australian Institute of Family Studies reports from 2015 and 2022 show that orders for shared parental responsibility are made in the majority of litigated matters, and in the presence of safety concerns. This is a strong indicator that the presumption is not working as intended, even where matters are determined by a court. 19:21 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I believe it's therefore worth me reading the words of the ALRC report into the Senate Hansard for the benefit of the Senate and for anybody who may pick up this Hansard. This is actually what the ALRC said: The ALRC supports the idea that a presumption of shared parental responsibility serves as a good starting point for negotiations between parents and recommends that the concept be retained. The ALRC also agrees in principle with the existing exceptions to that presumption, but recommends redrafting the exceptions as set out in Appendix G. … the wording of the presumption should be clarified to avoid the confusion surrounding the term 'equal shared parental responsibility' and the conflation with equal time. The ALRC recommends that, to reduce confusion, s 61DA be redrafted to refer to 'joint decision making on major long-term issues'. In practice, this would reflect the effect of orders that are currently made for equal shared parental responsibility, while eliminating most causes of misunderstanding of the provision. The ALRC then went on to capture this discussion in an express recommendation—recommendation 7—in the following terms: Section 61DA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) should be amended to replace the presumption of 'equal shared parental responsibility' with a presumption of 'joint decision making about major long-term issues'. Can I confirm again that the Attorney has not implemented that recommendation? In fact, he's ignored the ALRC's express comment that the presumption serves as a good starting point and should be retained. 19:24 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The government's approach of a full repeal is the most direct approach to addressing misunderstandings about this issue amongst the general public. I mentioned before and acknowledged the ALRC suggested wording. I mentioned the Australian Institute of Family Studies' reports from 2015 and 2022 that showed the orders for shared parental responsibility are made in a majority of litigated matters, and in the presence of safety concerns. In our view, that is a strong indicator that presumption is not working as intended, even when matters are determined by a court. The Australian Institute of Family Studies, from the very first evaluation of the 2006 family law reforms after the introduction of a concept of equally shared parental responsibility, found that there was a common misunderstanding that the presumption related to shared care time and, further, the study noted that this confusion has resulted in disillusionment amongst some fathers who find that the law does not provide for fifty-fifty custody. 19:25 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Minister, you keep raising the point that it was taken out for 'safety concerns'. Can you please tell me what the safety concerns were? 19:25 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland As I said, the government's approach of a full repeal is the most direct approach to address the misunderstandings about this issue amongst the general public. That is the government's approach. What I've been talking about is the Australian Institute of Family Studies, which has done reports and made submissions. From the very first evaluation of 2006 family law reforms after the introduction of the concept of equal shared parental responsibility, it was found that there was a common misunderstanding that the presumption related to shared care time. Further, that this study noted that this confusion has resulted in disillusionment amongst some fathers who find out the law does not provide for fifty-fifty custody. So that is part of the government decision-making. 19:26 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I can accept what you've said there and the report that's been handed down, but numerous times you have referred to taking it out due to 'safety reasons'. Can you please tell me what are the safety reasons? 19:26 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The removal of the presumption is supported by evidence that shows that the orders for shared parental responsibilities are made in the majority of litigated matters and in the presence of these family violence and safety concerns. The Australian Institute of Family Studies research findings support the removal of the presumption, as they stated in their Senate submission. AIFS's evaluation research together with AIFS's compliance and enforcement project indicates how the application of a presumption in favour of joint parental responsibility is unworkable and in many cases unsafe, compounding the existing risk for families accessing the court and other formal resolution pathways. And, as I mentioned, stakeholder feedback on the exposure draft also reaffirmed that the misconceptions led to vulnerable parties agreeing to unsafe and unfair parenting arrangements, and can provide ongoing avenues for continued coercive and controlling behaviour between partners and where family violence is an issue. 19:27 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland But then that's not in light of what Senator Cash has presented here with the documentation that there actually was an over-30 per cent reduction in it, because, since this was brought in by the Howard government in 2006, there has been a reduction in it, and we've established here the ALRC reckon that it should be kept in. You've got Professor Chisholm who's actually said it. Professor Patrick has also said it. It should be included in there. You've taken from advocacy groups. Minister, I asked you the question, and you said self-interest groups have advised you to actually take this out. Is one of the groups the Greens? 19:28 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I don't know what the Greens's position is on this, Senator Hanson, but you mentioned Professor Chisholm. As I said before, a lot has changed since 2009, and Professor Chisholm has expressed support for the approach of the repeal through evidence to the Senate inquiry. 19:28 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Minister, I wanted to take you back to what I was asking you earlier with regard to the new evidence. I refer to that where there is any new material. That concerns me. Do you understand which paragraph I'm at—whether there is any new material available that was not available to the court that made the final parenting order? I'm going back to that because, after a case has been settled, what if there has been something that's happened, perhaps with domestic violence, in that period of time? By taking the word 'new' out, you're not allowing them to bring new evidence to the court; it has to be based on evidence they had previously in court because you've taken out the word 'new'. I don't understand—if you can please clarify this for me—why you have taken out 'new'. If the case is a year or two old, or even a few months old, if anything has happened, what evidence are you going to limit them to presenting to the courts again because circumstances may have changed? 19:30 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks, Senator Hanson. Subparagraph 65DAAA(2)(b) of the bill stipulates that, when deciding whether it will be the best interests of the child to reconsider a final parenting order, the court may take into account whether there is any new material available that was not available to the court that made the final parenting order. The proposed amendment removes the word 'new' from this subparagraph in response to stakeholder feedback that the inclusion of 'new' could lead to legal arguments about what 'new' means. This amendment makes it clear the court may have regard to material that was in existence at the time of the court proceedings but was not considered by the court at the time. 19:31 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland If circumstances change, that new evidence cannot then be introduced to the court because it was not evidence at the time of the previous case. Therefore, by taking out 'new', if anything changes over that period of time you will not then allow them to introduce new evidence. 19:31 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks, Senator Hanson. My understanding is that it actually broadens it to allow any evidence that's relevant to be considered, including something that is new. 19:31 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I want to go to—and I asked you this question before—the costs. You referred me to section 117. Besides that, under the current legislation what you've got now is the general capability of the court towards costs. What's been correctly highlighted is that you've now got rid of the fact that the contravention of orders is evidence that is unsubstantiated highlighting the fact—they can't award costs against the person. You've gone back to general capability for the costs to be awarded. By changing the legislation people who bring evidence before the courts are not going to have costs awarded for them, against the litigant. My understanding is that, by changing this now, people who have claims to make or contraventions of orders are not going to get costs awarded to them, which is going to stop this in the court system. 19:33 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks, Senator Hanson. My understanding is the courts will still have the capability to administer a costs order, to award costs in any matter. 19:33 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I'm putting up another amendment with regard to fees. This is a big issue that was raised by a lot of people in the Senate inquiry—the costs that are outlaid and what it costs them to represent themselves or buy legal representation in the court system. My amendment here, on sheet 2132, is: The Minister must cause an independent review of the operation of this Act to be conducted within 6 months after the third anniversary of the commencement of this Act. …   …   … Without limiting subsection (1), the review must consider the following in relation to legal practitioners acting in proceedings in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) or in family law or child support proceedings (family law practitioners): (a) the appropriateness of fees charged to clients by family law practitioners; (b) the extent that family law practitioners are overcharging and overservicing their clients; (c) the effectiveness of sections 68 and 191 (parties to act consistently with overarching purpose) in reducing overcharging and overservicing by family law practitioners; (d) measures to prevent excessive fees being charged by family law practitioners. Will you consider my amendment? 19:35 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Senator Hanson, the government will not support your amendment. The review, as proposed by this bill, is the preferred approach by the government that allows for the most appropriate review mechanism to be decided in due course. In addition, with regard to the matters that you raise around legal fees, the scope of the review that we propose in the legislation would be settled in due course. 19:35 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland As I said, that's a huge disappointment because that was one of the main things that was raised. People have lost their homes over this and are paying off debts years afterwards. They then have to pay child support on top of this—what has been awarded against them. All they are fighting for is the right to have contact with the children. So that's another blow to them. They thought there might be some justice and they would be able to rein in what these lawyers are charging, the overservicing and keeping cases going. What is happening is just outrageous, and you've turned a blind eye to this and are not listening to what the Australian people said in their submissions to the last inquiry that was held by the joint committee. I have another amendment that I will be putting up. It is about the family violence orders. It says: (5) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), if the court is considering a family violence order, the court must have regard to the circumstances in which the order was made, including whether the making of the order was contested by a person. (6) If a family violence order was not contested by a person the court must: (a) consider whether there is actual proof of violence relating to the order; and (b) if the court considers that there is no actual proof of violence, the court must not take the order into account when determining what is in a child's best interests. (7) In considering the matters in subsection (6) the court may direct a party to the proceedings to adduce evidence that there is actual proof of violence relating to a family violence order that was not contested by a person. (8) If the court considers that: (a) there is no actual proof of violence in relation to a family violence order that was not contested; and (b) that the order was raised for purely tactical reasons; the court may make an order that the party to the proceeding who raised the order in evidence (including a legal practitioner representing the party) pay some or all of the costs of another party, or other parties, to the proceedings. Would you support this amendment? 19:38 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland We won't be. It is a matter for the court what weight is given to any evidence put before it. The government has proposed amendments which ensure the court must expressly include consideration of the history of family violence abuse and neglect in any family violence orders when determining the parenting arrangements that would promote the safety of the child and their caregivers. Passage and commencement of the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023 will establish enhanced information sharing powers, enabling the court to seek family violence, child abuse and neglect risk information directly from state and territory child protection, police and firearms agencies. This will ensure the court has a wholistic picture of family violence and child abuse risk to support their decision-making in the best interests of the child. 19:39 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Minister, raising domestic violence in that amendment was basically about protecting people from false allegations that have been brought against them. Surveys have been held—and this has come out from the judges—about what is happening in the court system. In 90 per cent of these hearings, 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 have been deliberately misleading. In another 46 per cent of these cases, the allegations were mistaken. This has been happening in the court system. I'll also refer to Family Court judge David Collier. He said that most of the allegations made to the court, over the 14-year period he was there, were for the parent's own gain and were used as a tactic to stop their partner from getting the children. Also, 90 per cent of the parents alleging child sexual abuse in contested hearings from 2012-19 were the mother. The fact is this is used. It was part of the inquiry as well. A lot of the evidence and submissions were about allegations of sexual abuse, which are being thrown around like confetti by too many people out there, and no proof is warranted. You talk about the courts. I don't know if you're aware that just last week the Queensland Magistrates Court practice direction No. 3 of 2023, put this in their documentation: Where a person charged with a domestic violence offence does not have legal representation for a summary proceeding for a domestic violence offence and pleads "not guilty" or declines to enter a plea, the follow process will apply. The Court will make directions for the delivery of a Brief of Evidence in accordance with Annexure B of this direction. The review mention of the proceedings will be seven weeks after the making of the directions. At the review mention the Court will consider whether any witness is a protected witness. If a witness is a protected witness the Court will consider making orders in accordance with Annexure C of this direction. If no orders are required a trial date will be set at the review mentioned and the matter will progress in the ordinary way. I raise this because the Magistrates Court believes that someone who's dragged before the courts has a right to defend themselves against any domestic violence allegations brought against them. In fact, if a person is unrepresented in a court the judge cannot bring a case against them. The judge does not have to inform the court about the person who doesn't contest it. My understanding is that a lot of people come before the courts. If they have legal representation, they are advised by their lawyers to contest without an admission to it. If you understand what I'm saying, they contest without an admission to it—that's if they have legal representation. I'll leave it up to Senator Cash while I find my notes. 19:43 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia It's consent without admission. 19:43 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland That's right—they consent without admission. Therefore, they have been put into a position where the courts take that into consideration. If you don't have legal representation, the courts cannot accept that. So they are then protected more. I'll tell people watching: 'Do not consent without admission. That can do you more harm in the court system. You should not consent to anything.' That is the problem. My amendment is to protect people. We have no definition of domestic violence. There are numerous types of domestic violence: physical domestic violence, coercive domestic violence and other forms of domestic violence. But this is what I said to you yesterday: if you're going to present allegations of domestic violence in a family law court then, if there is proof of it, charges should be laid and it should be determined in another court, and then it can be presented to the family law court, not just put in an affidavit or said in the court on the spur of the moment to enhance a person's case. Will you look at putting this in? As I say again, my amendment is to protect people against false allegations. A number of judges have raised this point. They need protecting, because a lot of people use it as a defence of claims that are not true or of which there's no proof. 19:45 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks, Senator Hanson. Obviously, the issues you're talking about there would largely be dealt with by states and territories. The family courts deal with the most difficult cases, with less than three per cent of separated families coming before the court. Those matters often concern significant allegations of child abuse and exposure to family violence. The government's information-sharing bill will be critical to ensuring that judges have the best evidence and information available to them so that they can make well-informed decisions about the risk of maltreatment. This is also why these bills place children at the centre of the family law system so that decisions can be made in their best interests and to keep them safe. So, to reiterate, we won't be supporting your amendment, Senator Hanson. 19:46 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I will return to the presumption of equal shared responsibility and go through the body of evidence that does not support the repeal of the presumption. There is another report, and that's the report of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System, which conducted an extremely comprehensive inquiry into the family law system and expressly considered the ALRC report recommendations. Just for the benefit of the Hansard record: with the exception of Labor members, as Senator Hanson will recall, the committee recommended that the presumption be amended as proposed by the Australian Law Reform Commission. From the body of evidence, it certainly would appear that the Attorney-General's decision to repeal the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was made for ideological and political reasons. He is very happy to refer to the very many reviews of the family law system that have taken place extensively over a number of years when it comes to equal shared parental responsibility, but none of the major reviews I have referred to actually recommends the repeal. Despite the Attorney-General implying to the Australian public that he has taken on board their feedback, the legislation that we have in front of us in no way accords with what those recommendations are. I would also like to put on the record what our international peers are doing. They are saying that we should move towards shared parental responsibility. In fact, the Law Council of Australia, in its submission on the exposure draft of the bill, stated: The Law Council notes that internationally, jurisdictions are increasingly moving towards a joint decision-making approach for shared parenting arrangements within their respective legislative frameworks. Some Constituent Bodies have consequently identified that the proposal in the Draft Bill to repeal the presumption of ESPR— equal shared parental responsibility— may have the effect of moving Australia away from this increasingly common approach and discouraging parents from attempting to consult with each other on decisions relating to the welfare of the child. Again, this is nothing more and nothing less than a political and ideological approach taken by the Attorney-General which goes against so many of the reports, the weight of evidence, Professor Parkinson, the Law Council of Australia and certainly the trend of international jurisdictions. I will just pick this up: you undertook a series of answers in response to Senator Hanson on this issue. The evidence that you put forward, other than stakeholder feedback, was a reference from the Australian Institute of Family Studies which said that the courts are making orders for parental responsibility even if there are safety concerns. I want to explore this, because the courts know—it is set out in the legislation—that the presumption does not apply if there are reasonable grounds to suspect abuse or violence. The courts also know, as is currently set out in the legislation, that the presumption is a rebuttable presumption. Therefore, presumably in all of the cases that the Australian Institute of Family Studies referred to, the courts would have had to consider the evidence and must have therefore concluded, given that (a) it's a rebuttable presumption and (b) it doesn't apply in the event, as I said, if there is a suspicion of violence or abuse, that there were no reasonable grounds to suspect violence or abuse. So, in your answer, Minister, this isn't, as you have put to Senator Hanson, an indicator that the presumption isn't working as intended. It is an indicator that, while safety concerns may well have been raised in the courts—they would have been duly considered—the courts have nevertheless found it appropriate to make an order for shared parental responsibility. So the evidence that you have given in response to Senator Hanson's line of questioning, the only way that your reference to the Australian Institute of Family Studies' evidence can in any way justify the repeal of the presumption, is that you are saying that the courts have consistently got it wrong. Can I clarify that is actually your evidence? 19:52 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland My evidence was that they recommended that it be repealed as part of their submission. 19:52 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, though, the only evidence you put forward other than stakeholder feedback is a reference from the AIFS, which says that courts are making orders for parental responsibility even if there are safety concerns. That is the evidence you gave to Senator Hanson. The point I'm making is that is what you are in part basing the Attorney-General's stance in relation to the repeal on. What I'm putting to you is we have a small issue with what you've said, because the courts know the presumption doesn't apply if there are reasonable grounds to suspect abuse or violence. They also know presumption is rebuttable. If you accept that, and I put it to you that you have to because its in the legislation, even if these issues have been raised and the courts have due duly considered them, they have then taken them into consideration and therefore have decided that, despite this, it is appropriate to make an order for shared parental responsibility. So, again, I put to you: the only way your reference to the AIFS evidence can in any way justify the repeal of the presumption is if you're saying the courts have got it consistently wrong. Is that what you're saying? It's the only way you can justify your evidence. 19:53 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland That is what the Australian Institute of Family Studies submitted—that it should be repealed. If you have an issue of why they provided that, you should take that up with them. They and other stakeholders also found that people didn't raise allegations because of a misunderstanding of the presumption as well. 19:53 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia That answer is completely at odds with the submission you have put to Senator Hanson. It is completely at odds with what the evidence shows in relation to what the courts take into consideration. Unfortunately, we have all of 35 minutes left and we are going to hit a hard marker. I have questions in relation to each of the schedules of the bill. So I just want to put on the record now some of the fundamental issues around the operation of the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility, because the weight of evidence would show this is nothing more and nothing less than an ideological and political decision taken by the Attorney-General. But what I do want to say is that there is unfortunately a significant amount of common ground here. We agree on many of the issues and problems dealt with by this bill, but we have different approaches to the solutions. This is not a partisan issue or a pointscoring exercise; it is a discussion about the best way to make our Family Law Act provide appropriately for the best interests of the children. For the benefit of anyone listening in, and for future generations looking at Hansard, I want to be clear on the government's position and its rationale for the changes to the bill that we have been discussing in relation to the complete abolition by the government, recommended by the Attorney-General, of the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. The presumption itself was introduced with the support of Labor, following a detailed, unanimous and bipartisan consideration of the actual issue. It's worth again being clear on exactly what the presumption is. The presumption the court applies is this: … it is in the best interests of the child that the parents share equally the parental responsibility for the child. This was a provision that the Labor Party supported. The explanation for that provision, as set out in the explanatory memorandum, was as follows: The provision is intended to promote decision-making about major long-term issues by both parents, for the benefit of the child. What we have now seen in this bill is the complete abolition of that. As presently written, the legislation explicitly says: The presumption provided for in this subsection is a presumption that relates solely to the allocation of parental responsibility for a child as defined in section 61B. It does not provide for a presumption about the amount of time the child spends with each of the parents (this issue is dealt with in section 65DAA). I would hope that the government trusts the court to apply the presumption fairly and carefully, but we do arrive at a situation where, despite the body of evidence, the Attorney-General has decided to remove it altogether for an ideological and political reason, as I stated. Unfortunately, we now have 33 minutes left. I will therefore turn to schedule 2. Schedule 2 of the bill rewrites division 13A of the Family Law Act. In its submission on the exposure draft of the bill, this is what the ACT Bar Association said: While it is agreed that the current provisions in Division 13A are a complex mess and should be simplified, the ACT BA does not consider that the proposed changes would make the division easier to understand. They are, instead, a different complex mess. That is the submission of the ACT Bar Association in relation to schedule 2 of the bill that we currently have before us. The ACT Bar Association also says this: … ACT BA submits that the provisions should be reconsidered and consultation with the profession should occur before that reconsideration. I ask you, Minister: why didn't the Attorney take up the generous and gracious invitation to rewrite schedule 2 in consultation with the profession? 'The profession' are people that read the law, I would hope apply it, get to understand it and then act on behalf of people in court. They are saying that we had one mess and—guess what!—you've replaced it with another mess. 19:59 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The majority of stakeholders who commented on schedule 2 were supportive of a redraft of part VII, division 13A to improve readability and make the division easier to understand. The Law Council of Australia submitted: … the proposed redraft streamlines and improves the readability of Division 13A, which will likely result in more consistent application by the courts of that Division and greater understanding by parties … as to the consequences of non-compliance with an order and initiation of unmeritorious contravention applications. The Family Law Council also endorsed the redraft, noting that it shifts the focus to attempting to resolve the underlying issue that gave rise to the noncompliance and with the issue of a potential penalty to be considered as a last resort, consistent with ALRC recommendation 42. However, a number of stakeholders raised specific concerns about the operational cost orders in the enforcement regime and the duplicity of a cost order provision being contained in this division, when the courts have a general power to make orders for costs in section 117 of the act. This has been addressed by adopting the Senate committee recommendation 3 to remove cost orders from division 13A. 20:00 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Unfortunately, Minister, despite your answer, in its submission to the committee inquiry on this bill, this is also what the Law Council of Australia said: However, while it is broadly supportive of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Bill, subject to the below recommendations, the Law Council has received feedback from the legal profession that Schedule 2 remains complex and difficult to understand overall. That's not exactly consistent with the evidence and the answer that you have just provided to me in relation to my question. This is, without a doubt, one of the most important schedules in the bill. Why do I say that? Because, for anybody listening in and for anyone who is involved or has been involved in family law proceedings, you will know that this deals with the enforcement of parenting orders. This is an incredibly important part of the bill because there are consequences in relation to you breaching one. Failures to comply with parenting orders are often some of the most difficult and damaging parts. So, despite what the minister has said, if this schedule is complex and difficult to understand for people whose job it is to run family law matters, seriously, what hope is there for an unrepresented litigant? What hope does an unrepresented litigant have when the ACT Bar Association itself says this in relation to the legislation that will pass this Senate tomorrow: The ACT BA does not consider that the proposed changes would make the division easier to understand. They are, instead, a different complex mess. So, to anybody listening in, guess what? Don't be fooled by the Attorney-General of Australia's submission to you that says, 'Hey, guess what, I'm simplifying the system and making it easier for you,' because that's not what the ACT Bar Association says. And in response to what the minister said to me about the evidence of the Law Council of Australia, let me just reiterate what the Law Council itself says: … while it is broadly supportive of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Bill, subject to the below recommendations, the Law Council has received feedback from the legal profession that Schedule 2 remains complex and difficult to understand overall. To any person out there who thought you might be taking a step forward in relation to the enforcement of parenting orders, I hate to tell you that you're not. You're probably, quite frankly, better off with the current system. At least people understand that it's a complete complex mess. All you're going to be doing now is trying to interpret another complex mess. I'll now turn to schedule 3. Schedule 3 amends the definition of 'relative' as it applies to an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child to the following: … a person who, in accordance with the child's Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture, is related to the child. In your government's amendments you have added the words, '(including, but not limited to any kinship systems of that culture)'. Minister, on average, how many people are related to an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child on Palm Island, according to that child's Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander's culture, including by virtue of kinship systems? 20:04 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I don't have that information available to me at the moment, Senator Cash. 20:04 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia This is very dangerous because this is one of the points that has been raised as to why we needed further committee hearings and, in particular, why we needed to take this particular clause to rural and remote communities in Australia. Minister, tell me what the definition of kinship is. 20:04 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland It's not defined is my understanding. It would be determined on a case-by-case basis before the courts. 20:04 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia This is getting even more confusing. Does the government understand the implications of changing the definition to include 'but not limited to any kinship systems of that culture'? What does the government say to the Australian people and, in particular, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who will be affected by this change in definition? What does the government mean by 'not limited to any kinship systems of that culture'? What are 'kinship systems of that culture'? Then we are going to move through Palm Island, Alice Springs, Melville Island and Ceduna, because you are right: it is going to differ in relation to each one. So what is the government's understanding of what that means? 20:05 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The concept of kinship describes a person's responsibility towards other people, the land and natural resources. Kinship is a system that determines how people relate to one another and their surroundings, with the aim of creating a cohesive and harmonious community. 20:06 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia How many people can be in a kinship system? 20:06 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland My understanding is it would be determined on a case-by-case basis by the courts. 20:06 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia For example, could 10 people be in a kinship system? Could 50 people be in a kinship system? Could 100 people be in a kinship system? I will assume that the department does have the answers to those questions, because this is an incredibly important potential consequence of the changes. What is going to happen to those people who are now included in this kinship system? There are actually potential legal consequences for them. 20:07 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The government amendments have the effect that the expanded part of the definition of a member of the family includes Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander concepts of family. Further, the government amendments and the current operation of the court notification obligations will be unchanged, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parties to proceedings will still be required to comply with them with reference to the definition of 'member of the family' but excluding the expanded component. This means that obligations will be the same for all parties and not more onerous for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parties. The approach of the government amendments is more consistent with recommendation 5 of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee report on the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 compared with the amendments proposed on amendment sheet 2070. 20:08 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia What elders in any of the communities in Palm Island, Alice Springs, Melville Island, Ceduna, Leonora, Penrith and Circular Head did the Attorney-General consult in relation to this change? 20:08 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I mentioned before, in my answers to Senator Hanson's questions, that the department consulted broadly with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations. 20:08 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Unfortunately we don't have time to find out what those organisations were, so I'll just put this on the record. In its submission on the exposure draft of the bill, this is what the Law Council of Australia said: Constituent Bodies have raised concerns that a definition of 'member of the family', which is inclusive of any relevant concept of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander family or kinship, but not specified as relevant in the particular circumstances of the case (as recommended by the ALRC), could, at times, result in unintended difficulties. But—my comment here—who really cares about them? Certainly not the government. Back to the quote: For instance, strangers to the litigation—who may not have anything to do with the care of the subject child—could have their health or police records subpoenaed and disclosed. These are the unintended consequences I was referring to. Back to the quote: It is inevitable that many people will find this invasive and will object to these records being produced or inspected. This will likely increase legal need and create additional costs and delay. In its submission on the exposure draft of the bill, this is what the Law Council of Australia said: In addition, this broadened definition would result in an extension of the notification provisions for disclosing involvement with child protection agencies. This imposes a more onerous notification requirement on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families, which could effectively include all interactions between any member of the kinship group and child protection authorities. If this is not the intended purpose of the legislation, the Law Council recommends the inclusion of a provision clarifying that the notification requirement does not extend to certain persons within the kinship group who are not connected through the particular circumstances of the case. So the effect of the change as introduced was to apply the notification obligation to a much wider group of people. You would have an obligation to notify the court even if the people involved were not raising the child, but you'd never need to raise it for a non-Indigenous family. I accept that your government's amendments belatedly change the definition to deal with the obligations to notify the court about family violence—I personally don't know why it took you so long—but how does your amendment deal with the risk of people being subpoenaed, as raised by the Law Council? 20:11 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The Law Council were commenting on the exposure draft. The bill is different, and we've also got an amendment that goes to that issue as well. 20:11 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Does the government know what the impact of this would be if someone in an Indigenous community—for example, in Palm Island—had their police records subpoenaed for litigation and they didn't even know about it? 20:11 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I might get you to repeat that. 20:11 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I'll put it slightly differently: how does the government amendment to the bill deal with the issue of subpoena of records? 20:12 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The issuing of subpoenas is a matter for the court at the request of a party and is subject to the restrictions provided by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021. Legally represented parties may issue a maximum of five subpoenas. Permission for further subpoenas may be granted by the court. Self-represented parties must obtain the courts permission to issue a subpoena. 20:12 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Unfortunately, for those listening in, it's 12 minutes past eight, and the government is guillotining debate on this at 8.30 pm tonight. So that means that, in relation to one of the most important bills to ever come before the Australian parliament, we do not have an appropriate time to actually interrogate it. I would have thought that—based on the questions that are being asked, the body of evidence that has been provided and the insufficient answers that are being given—anybody listening in would know we are not going to be doing justice to this bill. The bad news for everybody listening in is this, though: this bill is going to pass the Australian Senate, and the very sensible and considered amendments that the coalition has put forward in a bipartisan manner will not get support. Unfortunately, the Australian people are about to find out what the impact of sloppy drafting and unintended consequences is. At the outset of this debate, I said that there are very few things in the Commonwealth Attorney-General's portfolio that have a more direct impact on Australians than family law. Every year, thousands of Australians will find themselves going through the pain and sadness of separation, and, in a small proportion of those cases, disputes will be decided by a judge in Australia's family law courts. As a nation, we should aim for a system that resolves those disputes as quickly and cleanly as possible. Regardless of the circumstances, if children are involved, we should at all times prioritise their best interests. The coalition's track record on family law is one of sensible, careful reform that recognises problems and looks to build bipartisanship wherever possible. In 2003 we recognised that outcomes in the family law system were not meeting community expectations, and we worked for years to build the bipartisanship that led to the historic, landmark 2006 reforms. Those reforms changed the approach to family law to reduce litigation—that is a fact; I've read out the evidence—and improve outcomes across the family law system. In 2019 we recognised that the Family Court system had become inefficient and slow, burdened by a dual court system that was drawing out the pain of family law litigation for too many families. The courts merger under the former government, which finally went ahead in 2021, has been a stunningly successful project—the evidence shows this—that has drastically reduced the wait time for Australian families. Again, on this side of the chamber we acknowledge that there are parts of the family law system that are in need of reform. We have been consistent in this. Throughout this debate we have said publicly and repeatedly that we recognise that many of the issues this bill seeks to address are problems in need of a solution. We have been constructive. We have followed the recommendations of bodies like the Australian Law Reform Commission and the Law Council of Australia and the extensive work of committees like the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System. We have compromised where possible, and we are moving sensible amendments where we think we must, in one of the most difficult and sensitive areas of law reform. These amendments have been rejected by the Albanese government. Sadly, I cannot say the same about this government's approach to the Family Law Amendment Bill. We do not agree with the solutions adopted in many places in this bill. It is not a bill that has been worked through over many years. It is not even a bill that has been subject to proper scrutiny. There are actually more schedules in the bill than there have been hours of committee inquiry. It is embarrassing. Even with the small amount of scrutiny that we have been able to give, it has become increasingly clear that the government consistently puts its ideological agenda over the best interest of Australian families. Let's face it: yesterday the government started falling apart after just 90 minutes. We come in here today and find that this debate is being guillotined. It is worth recapping, though, the very many areas where there was a better way forward in relation to the Family Law Amendment Bill. In its changes to the parenting framework, we have the absurd situation of the Attorney deciding to remove every piece of guidance from the objects and principles, and we went through that in detail. By removing those provisions, the government sends a disturbing message: the parenting framework is no longer intended to achieve outcomes like parents cooperating in the care of their children. On equal shared parental responsibility, we have talked through this tonight and I am not satisfied with the answers we have been given. In fact, it's the exact opposite. It has only confirmed what so many have said: a political and ideological approach of a left-wing Labor government. We have the Attorney-General of Australia ignoring the recommendations arriving from the years of careful reviews, which acknowledged that the drafting could be improved—which, as I said, we agree with—but repeated that the principle of equal shared parental responsibility is sound. Instead of the measured approach that adopts the work of independent and expert bodies, as I have outlined tonight, the Attorney-General has adopted the preferred ideological approach of three Labor backbenchers. The changes to the enforcement of parenting orders have been criticised as replacing one complex mess with another complex mess, and the amendments to the definition of 'relative' and 'member of the family' for Indigenous children are fine in principle but beset with unintended consequences that have never been road-tested with communities on the ground. The independent children's lawyers framework, for some baffling reason, requires an additional hearing into the conduct of the lawyer. What is this going to do? One, it's going to act as a disincentive. Why would you bother? Two, it adds time, cost and delay. The changes to case management and procedure give no regard to the objective—such an important objective—of minimising acrimony in family law matters. As we know, the change to schedule 8 is a political decision, recommended by no-one. But we have had the minister here tonight telling us how the Attorney-General relied on different pieces of evidence. The change to schedule 8 is a political decision that is intended to give Mr Dreyfus a trigger to demerge the courts after the next election. This is despite the body of evidence that shows that the merger of the two courts has had positive benefits for families in Australia. What is so sad is that these types of changes could have been fixed. We could have made the bill better. But, at every step, Labor has put ideology over the needs of Australian families. Australian families would do well to remember the arrogance and intransience of this government and, particularly, of this Attorney-General. As I said, there are parts of this package that we agree with, and there are other parts where it is pretty obvious that there are problems. It is not just the opposition saying there are problems; it is a body of evidence, experts, saying that there are problems. The government has been warned. When the family law system now produces delays, problems and sadness, quite frankly, that is going to be on the Attorney-General's head. I will now briefly ask some final questions, in the last nine minutes. In fact, I might actually see if Senator Hanson wants to make any comments. There are nine minutes left, Senator Hanson. I've made my final statements, if you'd like to make any comments. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 217241 I think that the minister will respond. 20:21 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland By leave—I move government amendments (1) to (47) on sheet RU122, amendment (1) on sheet ZC233, amendments (1) to (4) on sheet ZE215 and amendment (1) on sheet ZC234 together: (1) Clause 2, page 3 (at the end of the table), add: (2) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (line 12), after "safety from", insert "being subjected to, or exposed to,". (3) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (after line 27), after subsection 60CC(2), insert: (2A) In considering the matters set out in paragraph (2)(a), the court must include consideration of: (a) any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving the child or a person caring for the child (whether or not the person had parental responsibility for the child); and (b) any family violence order that applies or has applied to the child or a member of the child's family. (4) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (line 32) to page 6 (line 2), omit paragraph 60CC(3)(a), substitute: (a) the child's right to enjoy the child's Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture, by having the support, opportunity and encouragement necessary: (i) to connect with, and maintain their connection with, members of their family and with their community, culture, country and language; and (ii) to explore the full extent of that culture, consistent with the child's age and developmental level and the child's views; and (iii) to develop a positive appreciation of that culture; and (5) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 20), after item 10, insert: 10A After subsection 68P(3) Insert: (3A) Paragraph (3)(c) does not require the court to give a copy of the order or injunction to a child if the court is satisfied that it is in the child's best interests not to receive a copy of the order or injunction. (6) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (lines 24 to 27), omit the item, substitute: 12 Application provision The amendments of the Family Law Act 1975 made by this Part apply in relation to the following proceedings: (a) proceedings instituted on or after the day this item commences; (b) proceedings instituted before, and not finally determined by, the day this item commences, other than proceedings in respect of which a final hearing has commenced by the day this item commences. (7) Schedule 1, item 16, page 7 (line 28), after "child,", insert "then, except to the extent the order otherwise specifies,". (8) Schedule 1, item 25, page 9 (lines 18 to 20), omit subitem (1), substitute: (1) Subject to subitem (2), the amendments of the Family Law Act 1975 made by this Part apply in relation to the following proceedings: (a) proceedings instituted on or after the day this item commences; (b) proceedings instituted before, and not finally determined by, the day this item commences, other than proceedings in respect of which a final hearing has commenced by the day this item commences. (9) Schedule 1, item 26, page 10 (line 22), omit "new". (10) Schedule 2, item 21, page 15 (lines 23 and 24), omit "(or must in certain circumstances with respect to costs orders)". (11) Schedule 2, item 21, page 16 (line 8), omit "program;", substitute "program.". (12) Schedule 2, item 21, page 16 (line 9), omit paragraph (d). (13) Schedule 2, item 21, page 16 (line 10), after "the court finds", insert "on the balance of probabilities". (14) Schedule 2, item 21, page 16 (line 16), omit "bond;", substitute "bond.". (15) Schedule 2, item 21, page 16 (lines 17 to 19), omit paragraph (c). (16) Schedule 2, item 21, page 16 (after line 29), at the end of section 70NAA, add: Note: A court may also award costs against a party under section 117 if satisfied there are circumstances that justify it doing so. (17) Schedule 2, item 21, page 16 (lines 33 and 34), omit paragraph 70NAB(a), substitute: (a) supporting compliance with child-related orders; and (18) Schedule 2, item 21, page 17 (lines 9 to 11), omit paragraph 70NAB(e), substitute: (e) providing for sanctions for a person who contravenes a child-related order without reasonable excuse. (19) Schedule 2, item 21, pages 17 and 18 (table), omit the table, substitute: (20) Schedule 2, item 21, page 19 (after line 14), after section 70NAD, insert: 70NADA Burden of proof in relation to reasonable excuse A person who claims to have a reasonable excuse for contravening a child-related order has the legal burden of proving the excuse. (21) Schedule 2, item 21, page 19 (lines 27 and 28), omit "(or must in certain circumstances)". (22) Schedule 2, item 21, page 21 (line 7), omit "did not spend", substitute "missed". (23) Schedule 2, item 21, page 22 (line 21) to page 23 (line 25), section 70NBE to be opposed. (24) Schedule 2, item 21, page 24 (lines 14 to 16), omit note 1. (25) Schedule 2, item 21, page 24 (line 17), omit "Note 2", substitute "Note". (26) Schedule 2, item 28, page 34 (line 4), omit "70NBE,". (27) Schedule 2, item 30, page 34 (line 8), omit ", 70NBE". (28) Schedule 2, item 32, page 34 (line 15), omit ", 70NBE". (29) Schedule 3, item 2, page 37 (line 13), after "culture", insert "(including but not limited to any kinship systems of that culture)". (30) Schedule 3, items 3 and 4, page 37 (lines 15 to 22), omit the items, substitute: 3 Subsection 4(1) (paragraph (b) of the definition of relative ) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) in paragraph (1AB)(e)—has the meaning given by subsection (1AC); and (c) in paragraph (1AB)(ea)—has the meaning given by subsection (1AD). 4 Paragraph 4(1AB)(e) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (e) the first person is or has been a relative of the second person within the meaning of subsection (1AC); or (ea) except for the purposes of sections 60CF, 60CH and 60CI—the first person is or has been a relative of the second person within the meaning of subsection (1AD); or 5 Subsection 4(1AC) Omit "subsection (1AB)", substitute "paragraph (1AB)(e)". 6 After subsection 4(1AC) Insert: (1AD) For the purposes of paragraph (1AB)(ea), if a person is related to an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child in accordance with the child's Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture (including but not limited to any kinship systems of that culture), the person is a relative of the child. Note: This subsection adds to the persons who are relatives of a person within the meaning of subsection (1AC). The difference is that the addition in this subsection does not apply for the purposes of sections 60CF, 60CH or 60CI, which relate to informing courts of certain matters (see paragraph (1AB)(ea)). (31) Schedule 3, item 5, page 37 (lines 23 to 29), omit the item, substitute: 7 Application provision So far as the amendments of the Family Law Act 1975 made by this Schedule apply in relation to proceedings, they apply in relation to: (a) proceedings instituted on or after the day this item commences; and (b) proceedings instituted before, and not finally determined by, the day this item commences, other than proceedings in respect of which a final hearing has commenced by the day this item commences. (32) Schedule 4, heading, page 38 (line 1), at the end of the heading, add "and Hague Convention proceedings". (33) Schedule 4, item 2, page 38 (after line 16), after subsection 68LA(5A), insert: (5AA) The independent children's lawyer has discretion in relation to the following matters (subject to any order or direction of the court with respect to the matter, for example under paragraph 68L(2)(b) or paragraph (5D)(b) of this section): (a) when, how often and how meetings with the child take place; (b) when, how often and how the child is provided with an opportunity to express views. (34) Schedule 4, item 2, page 39 (line 12), omit "68L(2)(a)", substitute "68L(2)(b)". (35) Schedule 4, item 3, page 39 (lines 13 to 16), omit the item, substitute: 3 Application provision The amendments of the Family Law Act 1975 made by this Part apply in relation to the following proceedings: (a) proceedings instituted on or after the day this item commences; (b) proceedings instituted before, and not finally determined by, the day this item commences, other than proceedings in respect of which a final hearing has commenced by the day this item commences. (36) Schedule 4, item 6, page 40 (lines 14 to 17), omit the item, substitute: 6 Application provision for items 4 and 5 The amendments of the Family Law Act 1975 made by items 4 and 5 of this Part apply in relation to the following proceedings: (a) proceedings instituted on or after the day this item commences; (b) proceedings instituted before, and not finally determined by, the day this item commences, other than proceedings in respect of which a final hearing has commenced by the day this item commences. (37) Schedule 4, page 40 (after line 17), at the end of Part 2, add: 7 Subsection 111B(1B) Repeal the subsection. (38) Schedule 5, item 5, page 42 (before line 10), insert: 102QA Interactions between provisions and with other powers of court (39) Schedule 5, item 6, page 44 (line 5), after "instituting proceedings", insert "under this Act". (40) Schedule 5, item 6, page 44 (after line 14), at the end of subsection 102QAC(1), add: Note: Proceedings includes cross-proceedings and incidental proceedings (see subsection 4(1)). (41) Schedule 5, item 6, page 44 (line 15), after "include", insert ", but is not limited to,". (42) Schedule 5, item 6, page 44 (line 20), at the end of subsection 102QAC(2), add: ; (d) financial harm. (43) Schedule 5, item 14, page 48 (lines 10 to 15), omit the item, substitute: 14 Application provision The amendments of the Family Law Act 1975 made by this Part apply in relation to the following proceedings: (a) proceedings instituted on or after the day this item commences; (b) proceedings instituted before, and not finally determined by, the day this item commences. (44) Schedule 5, item 18, page 51 (lines 23 to 28), omit the item, substitute: 18 Application provision The amendments of the Family Law Act 1975 made by this Part apply in relation to the following proceedings: (a) proceedings instituted on or after the day this item commences; (b) proceedings instituted before, and not finally determined by, the day this item commences, other than proceedings in respect of which a final hearing has commenced by the day this item commences. (45) Schedule 6, item 6, page 57 (line 23), after "material", insert "might". (46) Schedule 6, item 6, page 57 (after line 31), at the end of subsection 114Q(3), add: Note: Paragraphs (a) to (g) are examples of material that might be sufficient to identify a person to a member of the public. The examples are not exhaustive (see section 15AD of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901) and might not be sufficient to identify a person in every circumstance. (47) Schedule 6, item 6, page 59 (line 4), omit "a person who is a member of the party's family or a friend", substitute "one or more persons who are members of the party's family or friends". (1) Page 68 (after line 22), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 10 — Review of amendments 1 Review of amendments (1) The Minister must arrange for the conduct of a review of the operation of the amendments made by this Act (other than the amendments made by Schedules 8 and 9). The review is to start as soon as practicable after the third anniversary of the day that Schedule 1 to this Act commences and be completed within 12 months of the day the review starts. (2) The Minister must arrange for a report of the review to be prepared. (3) The Minister must table copies of the report in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after completion of the report. (1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (lines 21 to 24), omit paragraph 67ZBD(2)(a), substitute: (a) abuse, neglect or family violence to which a child to whom the proceedings relate has been, or is suspected to have been, subjected or exposed; (2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 6 (lines 11 to 14), omit paragraph 67ZBE(2)(a), substitute: (a) abuse, neglect or family violence to which a child to whom the proceedings relate has been, or is suspected to have been, subjected or exposed; (3) Schedule 1, item 7, page 8 (line 33), omit "may", substitute "must". (4) Schedule 1, item 7, page 9 (line 32), omit "(3)(c)", substitute "(3)(b) or (c)". (1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 11 (lines 3 to 19), omit section 67ZBL, substitute: 67ZBL Review of provisions (1) The Minister must arrange for the conduct of a review of the operation of this Subdivision, and regulations made for the purposes of this Subdivision, to start at both of the following times: (a) no later than 12 months after the commencement of this section; (b) as soon as practicable after the end of 3 years after that commencement. (2) The review mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) is to be completed within 12 months of the day the review starts. (3) Both reviews must consider the effectiveness of the Subdivision and regulations in meeting the objectives of the National Strategic Framework for Information Sharing between the Family Law and Family Violence and Child Protection Systems endorsed by the Meeting of Attorneys-General. Note: The National Framework could in 2023 be viewed on the Attorney-General's Department's website (https://www.ag.gov.au/). (4) The Minister must arrange for reports of both reviews to be prepared. (5) Copies of a report must be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the completion of the report. 20:22 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Minister, I'll go back to my amendment to do with legal fees. When I referred to the legal costs, I forgot to say what the committee said in the second interim report about legal costs. I put this in my amendment and I ask you to look at it because the legal fees are killing a lot of families. The committee recommended a legislated limit on the fees a legal practitioner may charge a party to a proceeding, set at either $50,000 or 10 per cent of the combined value of the asset pool, including superannuation, whichever is higher. The recommendation provides that greater fees may be charged in exceptional circumstances with leave of the court. The government shares the committee's concern with reports of excessive legal costs experienced by parties that are disproportionate with the value of the property pool in dispute. This is a complex issue, as there are a number of contributing factors to the cost of family law matters, such as delays in court processes, the issues in dispute, the behaviour and attitude of the parties, timely access to support services and alternative forms of dispute resolution, the duration of proceedings and the number of court events. Minister, I ask you again: will you please consider looking at capping fees in these court proceedings? You keep saying 'it is in the best interests of the child'. It is in the best interests of the child that their parents actually do have a roof over their head and don't lose that roof in the court system to the cost of lawyers' fees and charges. Some people were saying that the fees were around $200,000 to $300,000. One family paid over $1 million in court costs. So I am asking you again: will you consider capping legal fees, which was the committee's recommendation? The other thing that you've taken out are the costs that can be awarded for false allegations of domestic violence. Why did you take out the costs to do with domestic violence? 20:24 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I've already answered those questions, Senator Hanson. 20:24 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I can't get an answer out of you! Anyway, we're down to five minutes and I'm just going to sum up how I've assessed this whole lot. I appreciate the fact that, when we put this extension of time forward to ask you the questions, the crossbench and Senator Pocock actually supported this extra time that we have been given to have this debate tonight. The answers that I believe that I've got out of the minister tonight have been poor, pathetic and unprofessional. I don't believe he's really across the brief and he doesn't know exactly what he's doing. It's very good that he has his team of advisers there to tell him what to say and do. I'm here by myself. There are no advisers around me. I'm trying to deal with this, trying to get my head across this piece of legislation. I've had to get my head across a piece of legislation that they've drafted, but, at the end of the day, there are pages and pages of amendments to their own bill which they couldn't even get right. I'm trying to go through these amendments to their own bill, and they couldn't even get it right in the first place. The biggest thing that I found tonight that we've spoken about as part of this legislation is the fifty-fifty shared parental responsibility, and they have completely taken it out of the bill. It was recommended by the ALRC to actually not take it out but to reword it. The minister stood and said it was confusing—that was their excuse! It is confusing to people. They thought they had fifty-fifty per cent of custody over the children. That was determined, and it's up to the legal people to explain to them what it is about. As I have said, the people in the courts who are actually going for custody—all they're fighting for is time to see their own children, to be involved in their children's lives. You're actually cutting them out of that now. You're going to leave it up to the court system to give full responsibility to one parent. You're cutting the other parent out of their life. Do you know the psychological damage you are going to be doing to these children, because who knows that that one person is going to make the right decisions for that child? Then, what happens? I'll tell you of a case where the mother got custody of the child and she didn't want the father to see the child until the child was 13 or 14 years of age. We're talking about a child who, at that time, was four years of age. She didn't want the father to have anything to do with the child, but the courts didn't say that. They said, 'No, the father can have contact with the child every second weekend.' So what happened was, she was given full custody of the child as far as schooling, education, health—everything. Guess what? She couldn't handle the child. By the time the child was seven years of age, she rang up the father and said, 'You can take him.' Now the father has the child, but she's got the full responsibility of controlling the healthcare card, the schooling, the education and all the rest of it or there are threats. So what does the father do then? You've taken away the shared parental responsibility so the father has ended up with the child. This mother said, 'No, you can't see her until 14.' She couldn't control the child anymore—it was disrupting her life with the new boyfriend. So she's actually dumped the child on the father. This is not just an isolated case. This is what's happening. I'm just saying: Review this legislation. Have a look at these couple of things that have been raised here tonight because they're important. It's not just my point of view. I'm speaking on behalf of a lot of parents out there—not just men. I stand and fight for men's rights, by all means I do. I also fight for women's rights, but I think men have copped a raw deal in our court system because I think a lot of people have lied about domestic violence issues to gain support for their own case, and this is so wrong. This is so wrong, so I'll tell the parents out there: You brought that child into the world. You are both parents to that child, and it's about time you get rid of your selfishness and your vindictiveness and you actually start treating that child not as a piece of equipment or an asset that you can pass around and use at your convenience. It's about you conversing with each other, communicating and, as the government says, what's in the best interests of the child. That's my main concern; it's about the child. Many people want to be fantastic, good parents out there, but you're denying them that right. Progress reported. Senate adjourned at 20:30