﻿
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2023-11-08</date>
    <parliament.no>2</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>0</period.no>
    <chamber>Senate</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>1</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;" />
            <a href="Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 8 November 2023</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The PRESIDENT (Senator </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">the Hon. </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Sue Lines</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">)</span> took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tabling</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Meeting</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Competition and Consumer Amendment (Continuing ACCC Monitoring of Domestic Airline Competition) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="s1392" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Competition and Consumer Amendment (Continuing ACCC Monitoring of Domestic Airline Competition) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>1</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's appropriate that we are debating the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Continuing ACCC Monitoring of Domestic Airline Competition) Bill 2023 today—the day after the Reserve Bank of Australia was forced to once again lift interest rates as a result of the Anthony Albanese Labor government's failure to address inflation. Aviation is another area where the government has conspired to keep prices high—against the interests of Australian travellers, Australian freight exporters and Australia's tourism and small business operators. The government has kept the price of airfares high by restricting competition, by failing to make decisions on the things that are sitting on Catherine King's desk right now—slot management and monitoring the competitive nature of our domestic airlines, cancellations, delays and the drag on productivity that those bring—and by refusing to review its decision to reject Qatar Airways additional flights.</para>
<para>Their failure to make decisions on this raft of measures has meant that Australians are paying more than they need to to access our aviation sector. Coalition backbench senators have this private senator's bill before the Senate to do something about it—to deliver on one of the recommendations of the select committee's inquiry into bilateral aviation arrangements. This recommendation was backed by the current ACCC chair and former commissioners Fels and Sims, by a raft of academics and by aviation experts, who said that reinstating ACCC monitoring would be good for competition, transparency and accountability and would force changes in behaviour by particularly one airline that has had in recent times an incredibly poor track record of cancellations and delays—the Qantas Group.</para>
<para>We've seen cancellations and delays of not just significantly on the Sydney-to-Canberra and Sydney-to-Melbourne runs but, a couple of weeks ago, those cancellations and delays into Adelaide went up by 35 per cent, particularly by the Qantas Group. It seems that the Prime Minister's best buddy Alan Joyce's game plan and trajectory of poor market behaviour that was so exposed at the Qantas Group's AGM last week continues. Whilst the government made a big hullabaloo a few weeks ago about having reinstated the ACCC monitoring, the fact is, as we found out in estimates last week, the Treasurer is yet to direct the ACCC to do it. They put out the press release, got the positive news stories and got the votes, but has anything changed in the ACCC? No. You know why? The government hasn't sat down and written the direction letter.</para>
<para>It's not hard to make things happen. It's not hard to reinstate this monitoring. It just requires the Treasurer to actually follow through with actions rather than just trite press releases following a vote to not bring back Alan Joyce before this Senate to actually face legitimate and necessary questions from senators on behalf of the Australian public.</para>
<para>It's not just the Labor Party who refuse to bring Alan Joyce back into the Senate to face serious questions; it was the Greens and it was Senator Pocock. Some may say that those decisions were made because the government promised to reinstate the ACCC monitoring. Well, guess what? You were sold a pup, because they haven't reinstated it. That's why this bill before the Senate is so important, because it will not rely on a tardy treasurer to get the job done.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Dean Smith</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Twenty-three days to write a letter—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Save it for your contribution, Senator Smith. I am sure it's going to be compelling. But, you are right: it's been 23 days since the press release and still nothing's been done. It is like Catherine King's infrastructure review, which is now over a hundred days late. Again, it's been sitting on her desk. This is the most tardy of infrastructure ministers, and it must be an incredible embarrassment to a prime minister who hoped that infrastructure would be a key part of his legacy as Prime Minister, given he held that shadow portfolio for so long.</para>
<para>We know Australians want an aviation industry that simply gets the basics right, and for too long it hasn't. They want planes to take off and land on time, they want their bags to actually arrive at the same place and at the same time that they do and they want to actually be able to afford a ticket. But, because of the very cosy, personal and political relationship between Anthony Albanese and the former CEO Alan Joyce that continues to this day, the Labor government continues to run a protection racket for one of the most egregious corporates in Australian history.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Sorry, Senator McKenzie. There's a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McAllister</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a point of order which relates to two matters. The first is the need to refer to people in the other place by their correct title, and the second is the need to refrain from imputations on the character of others, in this case the Prime Minister.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Exercise caution, Senator McKenzie.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Mr Deputy President. It's not me implying that there's a cosy, personal and political relationship between the Prime Minister and the former CEO of Qantas; it is evidenced in the photos and in the fact that this government has run a complete protection racket, refusing to release dates of meetings, refusing to release documents—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McAllister</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Deputy President, the senator is ignoring your recommendations in relation to caution. I think that the senator is now moving to clearly impugn improper motives and she should withdraw it.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>For the benefit of the chamber, withdraw, to the extent that you implied improper motive against members of the other place.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I didn't do that.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I've asked you to withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If it assists a very sensitive government, I withdraw.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Don't make it into a political issue. I've asked you to withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And just be careful with the phrasing, please.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This is all very public phrasing that has been used outside of this chamber and in Senate estimates and right through the inquiry process. So for the government to somehow now be feeling very sensitive to phrases that have been used in this chamber and in the committees of this chamber for the last eight weeks I find incredible. But I do take that the government should be sensitive, particularly after the AGM results for the Qantas Group, where shareholders made very, very clear the fact that they were not happy with the behaviour of the board, of the former CEO and of the current senior management in how they've conducted their duties. They've illegally sacked 1,700 workers, they're before the ACCC for anticompetitive behaviour and they tried to pocket hundreds of millions of dollars of COVID flight credits of their loyal customers. The reputation of a once proud brand, a national carrier, has been trashed and, with it, the reputation of the Labor government, which continues to run a protection racket, refusing to answer questions on notice—a minister who refuses to front up and give the real reasons she refused Qatar Airways' application when her own department recommended that those negotiations begin, to put downward pressure on international flights to Europe through the Middle East, to give Australians more choice of destination. Minister King has refused to give the real reason. An entire protection racket has been run.</para>
<para>In the AGM for Qantas Group last week, something was released that, again, we tried to get to the bottom of through the processes and procedures of the Senate during the select committee inquiry, and that was how much Qantas actually expended to support the Prime Minister's 'yes' campaign for the referendum. It's very expensive to take planes out of service. It's very expensive to shift them from doing the task of shifting product and people around our nation as efficiently as possible and fly them to where they're going to be repainted or repurposed, shall we say, as the flag bearers for the 'yes' campaign in the aviation sector—to strip the paint, to repaint, to apply the special livery and to warehouse the planes until the special launch with Alan Joyce and the Prime Minister and all the elites in the hangar. They couldn't wait to celebrate the launch of the Qantas Group's 'yes' campaign planes. It actually cost $370,000 to support that, but that doesn't take in the opportunity lost and how many additional cancellations and delays occurred because those planes were taken out of service during that time.</para>
<para>These are the types of questions that we sought to get answers on from the government and from Qantas during the select committee inquiry, and again the minister refused to allow her officials from the department to answer legitimate questions on behalf of the Australian people. My office has been flooded—and I know other senators' offices have been flooded—with emails concerned about that relationship, concerned that this government does not have their back during a cost-of-living crisis. There are decisions that could be made today to bring relief, and this government is more interested in tripping the light fantastic on red carpets—not just here at home but around the globe—than dealing with the very real pressures Australian travellers and the Australian community are feeling.</para>
<para>With respect to the bill before us today, it would ensure that, if our tardy Treasurer couldn't find a pen to write to the ACCC to give them the direction, this essential reporting decision would be able to happen without him having to find a pen or a typewriter. Canberra Airport CEO Mr Byron said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I think the fact that Qantas is able to capture 80 per cent of the profit pool means that they are [inaudible] the strongest player, and massively dominant, like a monopolist. Qantas quite clearly are the price leaders and they seem to have led the prices up. They control the market, and everyone else gets the scraps.</para></quote>
<para>It didn't matter who we heard from in the inquiry. The only witness who did not want this reporting mechanism reinstated was the Qantas Group. It beggars belief that the government had to be dragged kicking and screaming—embarrassed publicly—and that they were once again standing beside their men—Alan Joyce, Richard Goyder, Mr Finch and all the other fabulous senior executives who have turned their back on the Australian public. They were quite prepared to give Alan Joyce the golden parachute and quite prepared to vote against him coming back and facing up to the Australian public's very real questions that this chamber has a responsibility to ask him.</para>
<para>Instead, you shut down the ACCC reporting and you won't bring Alan Joyce back in front of this committee, which is against the Australian peoples' wishes. It begs the question: why? What have you got to be afraid of? What are you hiding? Australians have a right to know why you continue to protect a corporate who, according to the CEO of Canberra Airport, controls the market because of their dominant position and their anticompetitive behaviour that's on display for everyone to see. Everyone has got a story about losing bags, cancelled and delayed flights, and tickets through the roof because Qantas isn't subjected to enough competition. It's not just in the Qatar Airways decision—it is here in the domestic market as well—yet this government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to make an announcement that they would agree with the committee they tried to shut down so many times—to reinstate recommendation 4—but it hasn't been done.</para>
<para>This is a chance for the Labor Party to back their press release and back the bill put forward by Senator Dean Smith and me, which delivers on recommendation 4 of the bilateral aviation inquiry, so that we can get the ACCC once again monitoring cancellations and delays and making that transparent and public, instead of hiding behind a press release that hasn't actually achieved anything and hasn't delivered what they said it would. I think it's incredibly disappointing because Australians right now want a government that has their back, not one that hangs out with elites and spends hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money on a referendum that was comprehensively rejected—it was supported by Qantas Group. As we heard in the inquiry, when I asked Mr Goyder who made that decision, it was a decision of senior management—it was a decision of the former CEO, Alan Joyce.</para>
<para>I want to ask the Labor Party, the government: why do you keep protecting this guy? Why do you keep protecting Qantas from greater competition and more transparency and accountability? Why do you keep refusing to bring Alan Joyce before this chamber's committees so that he can actually answer the questions that tens of thousands of Australian travellers rightfully have? He was the one, hand in glove with the Prime Minister, who made these decisions that have left Australian travellers poorer. I recommend you support the bill.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BILYK</name>
    <name.id>HZB</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll try and keep my comments less personal than what we just heard. I did note there wasn't much discussion about the actual bill in front of us in that contribution, so I will actually speak about the bill in front of us, the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Continuing ACCC Monitoring of Domestic Airline Competition) Bill 2023.</para>
<para>A thriving aviation sector is vital not only to our economy but in supporting our way of life as Australians. It connects family, friends and communities with each other and the world and links businesses to markets. Aviation underpins our national and international supply chains and enables tourism, mining, construction, manufacturing and higher education—industries that are all of vital importance to our economy.</para>
<para>We do, however, face unique challenges with the aviation industry in Australia. While we are blessed to have such a vast land, our relatively small population has historically made it difficult for the industry to sustain more than two major players. It's partly for this reason that the aviation sector is one of the most concentrated in the Australian economy, with the two major carriers accounting for 95 per cent of the domestic market.</para>
<para>On top of this, recent structural changes to the sector have led to a cosy arrangement between the two major carriers, in which Qantas Group and Virgin have more or less agreed to no longer compete head to head with each other and instead focus on carving out niche markets. While this might be great for the major airlines, this reduction in competitive tension can only lead to higher prices and poorer services for consumers.</para>
<para>We've already seen a sharp rise in complaints about the airlines from consumers increasingly frustrated by flight cancellations and delays in recent times, which remain well above the long-term trends. Added to this is the unscrupulous behaviour of Qantas, which, among other questionable practices, thought it was appropriate to sell seats on flights that they never intended to schedule. When you couple this with a broken system that has made getting a refund for cancelled flights or honouring flights near impossible, it's not hard to see that there are some serious problems with competition between our domestic carriers.</para>
<para>All Australians want and deserve a more competitive aviation sector. We all want and deserve an aviation sector that offers strong protections for consumers but also does much better when it comes to looking after the interests of the 90,000 workers employed in the industry. We all want and deserve a more competitive airline industry that delivers more choice for Australians facing cost-of-living pressures.</para>
<para>The Albanese government is committed to delivering a fairer and more competitive aviation sector—one that works in the interests of Australians. Last month the Treasurer, the Hon. Jim Chalmers, alongside the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, the Hon. Catherine King, announced that the Albanese government will direct the ACCC to monitor domestic air passenger services to help ensure Australians see the benefits of a more competitive airline sector.</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BILYK</name>
    <name.id>HZB</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Deputy President, would you ask them to lower their interjections a bit? I've got a bit of a sore throat. I don't want to have to yell over the top of them all the time.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I note that you did interject yourself, Senator Bilyk—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BILYK</name>
    <name.id>HZB</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Not so loudly, Deputy President.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>but please restrain yourselves, to my left.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BILYK</name>
    <name.id>HZB</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Along with extra resourcing, this direction will provide the ACCC with the necessary legislative powers to gather information and documents from relevant stakeholders within the industry and allow for more informed recommendations on competition and consumer issues within the domestic airline sector. It will ensure that airlines compete on their merits, bringing to light any inappropriate market conduct and providing continued transparency at a time when new and expanding airlines are establishing themselves.</para>
<para>Although a similar direction was initiated by the previous government, monitoring was scheduled to end in June 2023. So here we go: a similar direction was initiated by the previous government with monitoring scheduled to end in June 2023. Under the previous government, 12 reports were received from the ACCC, which painted a damning picture of declining customer service standards, higher prices, record cancellations and record delays. What did they do with that information? Zilch. Absolutely nothing. They did absolutely nothing.</para>
<para>For our part, as the responsible government of the day, we welcome the findings of these reports from the ACCC. We welcome both the challenges posed by the domestic aviation industry as well as the opportunity to make real progress in tackling the issues faced. For these reasons we've decided to restart the ACCC monitoring of domestic air passenger services. However, in stark contrast to the previous government, the Albanese government will use the information gathered through the ACCC monitoring to help inform the aviation white paper, which will set the policy direction for the sector out to 2050. This aviation white paper, due to be released in 2024, will be the first for the industry in over 10 years—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Sorry, Senator Bilyk, Senator Smith is on his feet, and I'm anticipating a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Dean Smith</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I think I've been operating under an illusion. I thought the government was elected in May last year—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This is not a point of order, Senator Smith. You know better. Senator Smith, I do note we're going to hear from you shortly. Senator Bilyk, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BILYK</name>
    <name.id>HZB</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You can always tell when you hit the mark with the other side, because they stand up with some gratuitous point of order.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Please proceed.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BILYK</name>
    <name.id>HZB</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This aviation white paper, due to be released in 2024, will be the first for the industry in over 10 years since the then minister for transport, Anthony Albanese, released the previous one in 2009. It will be the first one in over 10 years, because we all know what happened when the other side were in government—nothing.</para>
<para>We do this because, unlike the previous government, we recognise the urgent need to bring an end to the uncertainty facing the aviation sector that proliferated unabated under the watch of the previous government. It will enable and encourage long-term investment, particularly from new and emerging carriers, through the creation—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKenzie has a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKenzie</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I think Senator Bilyk is impugning Minister King by saying she's urgent. She's nothing of the sort.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You know that's not a point of order. You should know better. Senator Bilyk.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BILYK</name>
    <name.id>HZB</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Exactly; she should know better.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Don't add salt into the wound.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BILYK</name>
    <name.id>HZB</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, I'm very happy to say that, once again, there's another gratuitous point of order. On this side you can always tell when you've hit a nerve, because that's what happens from that side.</para>
<para>As I said, unlike the previous government, we recognise the urgent need to bring an end to the uncertainty facing the aviation sector. We absolutely understand the urgent need. It will enable and encourage long-term investment, particularly from new and emerging carriers, through the creation of a more level playing field while ensuring that we maintain and improve our internationally enviable safety record. It's a demonstration of this government's commitment not only to the aviation sector but to all communities and consumers affected by the aviation industry.</para>
<para>The government does not, however, support the passage of the bill proposed by the opposition. While we acknowledge the value of providing the ACCC with resources to monitor the aviation sector, the proposed bill merely duplicates the functions of the ACCC direction under section 95H of the Competition and Consumer Act already agreed to by government. If passed, it would require the ACCC to produce multiple reports to government on the same industry—an exercise in bureaucratic red tape if ever there was one. Not only that, in its current draft the bill will not provide the ACCC with the vital information-gathering powers it would need to obtain information and data from relevant suppliers. Without any power to compel relevant stakeholders to hand over documents or data, the ACCC role will essentially be confined to conducting desktop research only—all of which is of limited value in its aim of increasing competition within the sector.</para>
<para>Passage of this bill would also require an insertion of provisions into the Competition and Consumer Act, but for what purpose? It simply duplicates what is much more easily achieved through the directive process already announced by the government. On top of that, inevitably the bill would need to be removed through formal legislative amendment—a further waste of time and a further exercise in bureaucratic futility, and I suspect that the opposition know this too.</para>
<para>Why are they proposing this bill now, anyway? They could have introduced it at any time during their almost 10 years in government. All of a sudden, in opposition, they can become active. I suspect it's because they know that this is nothing more than a political stunt designed to deflect attention from their own lack of action over the past 10 years. And we shouldn't forget that competition within the aviation sector was allowed to decline to the state it is in today under their watch.</para>
<para>And while we're on the subject of the former government, we should take a look at the significant part they played in helping Qantas gain an unfair advantage in the aviation sector during the pandemic. What happened? Well, the previous government was happy to shell out a total of $2.7 billion in taxpayer funded payments to help the airline remain afloat during the pandemic—$2.7 billion. This included $900 million in JobKeeper payments and an additional $1.8 billion in other government assistance programs. While Labor agrees that efforts were necessary to sustain the airline industry during the pandemic, this no-strings-attached funding arrangement is yet another illustration of the incompetence of the former Morrison government. Despite posting a record profit of a whopping $2.5 billion for the last financial year, Qantas has no intention of repaying any of the taxpayer funding it received from the government, nor is it required to. That's right: the former government, in their infinite wisdom, designed the JobKeeper program with no requirements for companies to repay the Commonwealth, even when beneficiaries of the scheme were actually increasing their profits. Worse still, instead of using the money to protect the jobs and entitlements of their workers, Qantas were shamelessly outsourcing thousands of jobs in baggage handling, catering and even flight attendants.</para>
<para>The former government either didn't notice or, I think, simply didn't care. Not only were taxpayers being taken for a ride; the lives of thousands of loyal Qantas workers were being completely shattered. I've spoken in this place before about dnata workers who were stood down and who had to eat tinned food to get by, and I met with flight attendants who were trying to live on $750 a fortnight. Over 5,000 dnata workers had no access to JobKeeker payments, and 4,000 were stood down, forced to join the unemployment queues and fend for themselves, all while Qantas was making huge profits. The same happened to hundreds of flight attendants employed under labour hire agreements, including 28 in my home state of Tasmania. The previous government made no provisions whatsoever to require Qantas to protect the jobs of their workers in return for the billions in taxpayer dollars they were receiving. This is not the behaviour of a responsible government, and it's certainly not the way to create a more competitive aviation industry.</para>
<para>Unlike its predecessors, this government is serious when it comes to increasing competition within the sector. We do so by recognising that we need a much more level playing field not only for the established airlines but for new and emerging players as well. We welcome and encourage an increased market share from smaller airlines, such as Rex and Bonza, but recognise that price competitiveness is not the only barrier to achieving this. As highlighted in the June 2023 report from the ACCC, a major barrier to new and emerging players is access to airport landing and take-off slots, most notably at Sydney airport. The current system allows for capacity restraints, such as take-off and landing slots, to be gamed or engineered to favour established players, stifling competition and ensuring the duopoly remains deeply entrenched. If we are to truly transform and modernise our aviation industry, there are many areas that will need to be reformed, not least of which is urgently addressing consumers' and workers' rights.</para>
<para>Whilst monitoring airline prices, profits and passenger numbers gives us some very useful information, it will do little in itself to bring about meaningful reform or address the far wider issues facing our domestic aviation industry. But we will not go down the path of amending legislation simply for the sake of it, as the opposition is proposing. Instead the Albanese government is taking the far more responsible and pragmatic approach of using data from the ACCC direction to inform our aviation white paper to bring about the most comprehensive change to the industry in over a decade.</para>
<para>I'd just like to reiterate that, in the previous 10 years, there were many, many reports that were never acted upon by that side. So for them to come in with this bill before us and carry on—quite hysterically, I might say it sounded, especially with interjections—is once again just the other side not accepting that they did the wrong thing, trying to make it look as though we're not doing the right thing, when, of course, we certainly are. All I can say to that side is: Really, guys? You do yourselves no favours. If you had have taken a responsible and pragmatic approach in the 10 years you were in government, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today and we wouldn't have to continually clean up the mess that you guys left behind.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I speak to the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Continuing ACCC Monitoring of Domestic Airline Competition) Bill 2023, and I commend Senators McKenzie and Smith for advancing this bill. The bill amends the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to direct the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the ACCC, to continue its monitoring program of prices, costs and profits in the Australian domestic airline industry.</para>
<para>The Morrison government initiated this monitoring on 19 June 2020, and it sunset in June this year. The Albanese government decided not to continue the monitoring. Perhaps former Qantas CEO Alan Joyce asked the Prime Minister in one of their many meetings for a favour, a favour for Alan Joyce and his masters, Qantas's shareholders BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, Goldman Sachs and their cronies. All love monopolies and oligopolies! This Labor government seems to have opened more doors for captains of industry than it does for everyday Australians.</para>
<para>The ACCC's <inline font-style="italic">Airline </inline><inline font-style="italic">competition in Australia</inline> report from June 2023 identified ongoing issues connected to insufficient competition within Australia's domestic airline industry.</para>
<para>The lack of competition has led to higher airfares and a decline in service quality. Cancellations have increased from one per cent before COVID to six per cent now. On-time running has fallen from a high of 92 per cent before COVID to just 70 per cent now, which, admittedly, is an improvement on the 64 per cent Qantas and Virgin were managing just a few months ago. By any measure, this poor performance is unacceptable. I remind people that the word 'Joyced' has entered the Australian vernacular to describe having one's travel plans shafted due to Qantas's incompetence, arrogance and greed.</para>
<para>The reason Qantas and Virgin are still occupying a position of total market dominance—94 per cent of the market—is that they don't have any competition. I recall being in a hearing on industrial relations in Rockhampton recently with Qantas government relations people sitting in front of us. I expressed my safety concerns because Qantas's culture has deteriorated despite having outstanding staff at all levels, from pilots to ground staff to stewards to bookings clerks, all thoroughly competent, committed people. That deterioration has come from the top. The staff are wonderful; the leadership is poor.</para>
<para>Look at the 'yes' campaign livery of an airliner—a 60-metre flying billboard costing hundreds of thousands of dollars to paint the 'yes' livery. That shows the arrogance of the Qantas executives because they know that they have domination of the market. They have market control, and market control brings arrogance. They're also pushing for short-term gains for executive management under their compensation schemes, and then the former executive, Alan Joyce, serves the government politically, in many ways, and he's done that repeatedly. My big concern is that, when the culture deteriorates—from Qantas's fine culture of a few decades ago—safety can unwittingly be compromised. That is a vital concern for me. I'll point out that it's not regulation that creates a customer focused operation; it's a competitor running a customer focused operation.</para>
<para>James Strong did a marvellous job at Qantas—and TAA—before it was privatised. Short of having another wonderful executive come along, it is a competitor running a customer focused operation that creates a customer focused operation and will restore Qantas and Virgin. Free market competition will deliver the lowest price with the highest service and safety every time—if it is allowed to! Sadly, Australia is a small market, and many industries have, over time, become oligopolies. Grocery retailing is another example of a market gone bad into an oligopoly.</para>
<para>Bonza airlines to took 14 years to get in the air over Australia because of our airline industry's barriers to entry. Six months after their first flight, the Albanese government terminated the ACCC project that helped Bonza finally get into the air in the first place. Perhaps the final ACCC report from June spooked the government's big business mates, Blackrock, Vanguard, State Street, Goldman Sachs and their cronies. That final ACCC report found that, while the emergence of small carriers has opened possibilities for increased competition in the domestic airline sector, these airlines would need significant growth to genuinely challenge the dominance of Australia's largest two carriers. There's no real competition, even with Bonza in. Restrictions remain favourable to Qantas and Virgin to protect them from direct market competition and force the Australian flying public, the consumers, to pay more than they need to.</para>
<para>Over the past 20 years, 90 per cent or more of domestic passengers have opted to fly with Australia's two largest carriers. As of April 2023, these two airline conglomerates accounted for 94 per cent of all domestic passengers. Former Qantas Group executive and Jetstar chief Jayne Hrdlicka is now head of Virgin. So it's a nice, tidy little cabal. They force regional flyers to pay exorbitant fares. Regions are the bedrock of Australia, and yet we're asking them to support a monopoly.</para>
<para>This bill largely replicates the previous direction. Monitoring will take into consideration the need for commercial confidentiality. The ACCC must publish each report on the website, and the minister must cause the report to be tabled in parliament. In the House Standing Committee on Economics hearing into promoting economic competition in June 2023 Tim Jordan, the Chief Executive Officer of Bonza Aviation, made this statement:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the path was lengthy. This project took from late 2009 until early 2023 to come to fruition. That tells you the barriers to entry in Australia—</para></quote>
<para>14 years—</para>
<quote><para class="block">It is a sad indictment of the existing duopolistic environment that, although we would have very positive conversations with potential Australian investors, they would conclude—</para></quote>
<para>'they' being the investors—</para>
<quote><para class="block">'This sounds great, and we believe in the scale of the opportunity, but unfortunately the incumbents will not allow you to prosper.' That is a sad indictment of the competitive nature of this market segment.</para></quote>
<para>I feel Mr Jordan's pain and the flying public's pain.</para>
<para>I know those proposing a new Australian steel industry in North Queensland and northern Western Australia are, despite promising news for the project, hearing exactly the same thing from some investors. The sums add up for an Australian steel industry, adding tens of thousands of breadwinner jobs and national security, yet government incompetence and the woke agenda means these companies will consider investing in foreign markets instead. The actions of the Albanese government in refusing to extend the monitoring are another example of a government that has no clue how to create real jobs and how to lower prices for everyday Australians—at a time of high inflation, high cost of living and high energy prices: stick it to the Australian consumer.</para>
<para>Mr Jordan went on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Going back to your point about the barriers to entry, when you have constrained slots—</para></quote>
<para>That's the airport gates—</para>
<quote><para class="block">and other entry issues, such as access to a choice of suppliers, it slows down growth and the ability to accelerate and achieve economic efficiencies so as to continue to be viable.</para></quote>
<para>The ACCC has much work to do here. Qantas and Virgin must not be allowed to exploit their market power to protect their market share in a manner that is legally indefensible and thereby force Bonza to fail. Bonza must be allowed access to airport gates, access to maintenance shops and access to suppliers at fair market price. Anything else is crony capitalism.</para>
<para>For those who have been 'Joyced'—shovelled off to a hotel in the middle of the night instead of sleeping in your bed, had luggage disappear and later return damaged, or missed international connections and been told, 'Not Qantas's problem'—no-one could argue we don't need more competition. No-one could argue that increased competition in the airline industry will lead to increased efficiencies right across the country. Bonza raises the hope of keeping these bastards honest and, at a time of high cost of living and inflation, giving consumers relief. It's the ACCC's job to give Bonza every opportunity to do just that.</para>
<para>I thank Senators Dean Smith and McKenzie for their bill, which One Nation will be supporting. We have one flag, we are one community, we are one nation. Restoring and defending competition in oligopolistic markets is a government obligation, an obligation that One Nation will work to ensure the government fulfils for the benefit of airline passengers and the whole country.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The coalition welcomes the support and the endorsement from Senator Roberts and from other senators in regard to this particular private senator's bill, the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Continuing ACCC Monitoring of Domestic Airline Competition) Bill 2023. For all of the colour and movement in Senator Bilyk's contribution, I think it's very important that we stay on the facts and reiterate why it is important that this matter be addressed. You could be mistaken for thinking that Senator Bilyk was speaking from the coalition talking points when it comes to the importance of the aviation sector in our economy, the importance of the aviation sector to families and how they stay connected both domestically and internationally, and the importance of holding Australia's airlines accountable for deteriorating levels of service at a time when prices have been going up and up and up.</para>
<para>The core of this bill is actually to do nothing new but to extend an ACCC monitoring regime that has proved very successful—so successful that you can't find anyone in this country, except the Qantas group, who objects to extending the airline monitoring regime. Senator Bilyk said that the coalition instituted the ACCC monitoring regime—which is correct—and did nothing with the reports. Well, if Senator Bilyk had taken the time to read the reports she would know that it was only in the final report, issued in June this year, that a pathway to legislative and regulatory action was suggested by the ACCC.</para>
<para>We're at this point. The coalition is arguing that that regime should be extended and that, in addition to that, those points that were raised in the final report should be acted on: improvements to consumer protections, improvements to the Sydney airport slot management regime and an extension to the monitoring regime that was effectively asked for by the ACCC itself. At the very core of the issue—on one level it is so mundane but on another level so significant; just listen to this, please, Senator McKim, Senator Pocock—the government extracted a commitment, an arrangement, from the Australian Greens and Senator Pocock. I don't know the exact nature of that. I don't know the breadth of that arrangement. But I do know that you agreed not to support this bill, because the government said it would introduce its own extension to the same monitoring regime. Senator Pocock is nodding. And the government put it in writing on 18 October—23 days ago.</para>
<para>So, please explain to me why the Treasurer, Dr Chalmers—supported by the competition minister, Dr Leigh—had not put pen to paper. The fact that they had not put pen to paper for 23 days should leave the Australian Greens and Senator Pocock wondering, guessing, concerned—because I've got some questions. Perhaps Senator McKim and perhaps Senator Pocock might be able to answer this in their own contributions: will the monitoring regime that the government committed to in a media release commence only from the first day that the last regime ended? Or will it begin at a future point? And does that mean that Australian consumers and the aviation sector generally will be left with a monitoring black hole?</para>
<para>It's not my nature and it's not Senator McKenzie's nature—I think many would agree—to use the private senator's bill opportunity that this Senate presents to bring flippant and unnecessary ideas to the floor of the Senate chamber; it is not. We have had lots of noise about aviation issues in our country over a good six months, necessary because Australian consumers are paying a high price for delay and getting very poor levels of service. And let's go back to the ACCC monitoring report, the very final one, and remind ourselves of what it said. You don't actually have to read very far; you only have to start at page 2. The report says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">After showing signs of improvements earlier in the year, the latest rates of flight cancellations and delays have gotten worse and remain poor compared to long-term industry averages. The industry cancelled 3.9% of flights in April 2023, compared with the industry long‑term average of 2.1%. Jetstar continued to perform significantly worse than the rest of the industry. It cancelled 8.1% of flights in April, more than double the rate of the other airlines.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The industry reported that only 71.8% of flights arrived on-time in April, well below the industry long-term average of 81.5%.</para></quote>
<para>It goes on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The duopoly market structure of the domestic airline industry has made it one of the most highly concentrated industries in Australia, other than natural monopolies. The lack of effective competition over the last decade has resulted in underwhelming outcomes for consumers in terms of airfares, reliability of services and customer service.</para></quote>
<para>Senator Bilyk remarked in her contribution, in a way of almost resignation, that Australia suffered from the consequences of being constrained by population over a large geographic area, that we couldn't do better than two airlines in our country. That's not true. It's the regulatory environment that is stifling aviation operators like Rex and Bonza in establishing their place in the aviation sector. They are not going to be the size of Qantas or Virgin, but it's the current regulatory arrangements that are denying them the opportunity to grow—and, when they do grow, the predatory behaviour of Qantas in particular makes it very difficult for them. Again, these were identified in the airline monitoring regime.</para>
<para>The question is this: on what date, Senator Pocock, Senator McKim and backbench Labor senators, do you expect Dr Chalmers to issue the instruction to the ACCC? I kid you not: it is a letter. It is two pages.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator David Pocock</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Today.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Today? Thank you, Senator Pocock.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It is not our custom to clap.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKenzie</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Slow clap!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That makes it all the more ridiculous. That makes it all the more outrageous. When this private senator's bill appeared and was on the Senate <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>, guess what happened? Dr Chalmers and Dr Leigh woke up. The least they could do for Australian consumers, they did. There is a media statement, everyone goes back to sleep, there is nothing to see, a private senator's bill comes up for debate and, oh, Senator Pocock has been given a commitment by Dr Chalmers or Dr Leigh that it will happen today. Is that how the government functions? I will put my hand up and say that, for the next three days in the Senate, we should only have private senator's bills. Senator Payman, Senator McKim, we should only have private senator's bills—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Smith, you are advised to address your comments through the chair, please.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>and, Senator David Pocock, we should only have private senator's bills because guess what happens? The government might wake up and might come back to work, and this country might start moving forward.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Smith, I have asked you to address your comments through the chair. Have you finished your contribution?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Continue, but please address your comments to—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Henderson, I'm speaking. Senator Smith, could you please address your comments through the chair. Please proceed.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I notice that the minister, Senator Watt, is also in the chamber. I wonder if Senator Watt can confirm—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Smith, you're also aware that you're not to reflect on the presence of senators in the chamber. Please proceed.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Given Senator Pocock's revelation—and the Senate chamber thanks Senator Pocock for the revelation, and I'm sure those of us that watch ACCC matters very closely will be on the internet waiting, waiting, waiting—perhaps the government might like to take a question in question time to confirm what Senator David Pocock has released.</para>
<para>Let's go back through the last 23 days. We still don't know, Senator Pocock—through you, Chair: does the regime begin at the period at which the last regime ended or is there a monitoring black hole that will soon be detailed?</para>
<para>On 18 October, the Albanese government announced by media release it would reinstate the monitoring for three years, commencing before the end of the year. 'Before the end of the year' is what the media statement said. So we might get the direction today, but it might still begin at some future point.</para>
<para>During Senate estimates on 20 October, both Minister Gallagher and Treasury officials confirmed the direction from the Treasurer to the ACCC to commence the monitoring had still not been initiated. We know that, and now we know that it's going to happen today. On the details of that we're still unsure. We wait anxiously. In the same estimates hearing, Minister Gallagher and Treasury officials noted that the ACCC would require time to prepare for the monitoring to begin, but the ACCC chair herself refuted this, confirming that the ACCC has maintained its monitoring team and is ready to begin the monitoring immediately. So again I say: why have we been waiting? Why have consumers not been protected? The ACCC chair went on to say that the ACCC was able to run the monitoring program from when the previous regime ended on 30 June 2023 without a gap. I wait with great interest. Will we see the direction today? What are the terms and conditions under which the monitoring regime will begin? And the question still remains: why did we have to wait? I'm prepared to take Senator David Pocock's admission this morning that it will happen today, but I don't trust that the government will deliver on its commitment to Senator David Pocock. We wait anxiously.</para>
<para>If the government can be dragged kicking and screaming to reinstating the ACCC monitoring regime, I'm putting the government on notice now that the coalition will bring forward consumer protections to the parliament in the next six months if the Labor government can't or if the Labor government won't. I'm putting them on notice, because the consumer protection piece is an important piece that is also raised in that final ACCC monitoring regime report. If it takes private senator's bills, I'm not opposed to bringing them to the parliament. Neither is Senator McKenzie. If aviation sector reform and improvements for consumers are going to happen only if the coalition brings private senator's bills to the Senate, then, with Senator McKenzie, I'm happy to do that. The coalition is happy to lead where the government will not on aviation competition reforms that protect consumer interests.</para>
<para>What a revelation. For a rather dry piece of competition policy—an ACCC monitoring regime—this has been a very colourful morning, a very interesting morning, already. It is a small thing. It should not have taken this long, but it did, so let's just let the government get on with it. Bring the direction forward, so that Senator McKenzie and I can go away and work on the next private senator's bill that will improve consumer protections. Senator Pocock and Senator McKim, we hope you might be inclined to support that bill when it comes to the parliament or at least to get a better deal out of the government.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Continuing ACCC Monitoring of Domestic Airline Competition) Bill 2023. There's limited time scheduled for private senator's bills from the opposition. If they believe this is the best use of their time, I despair of the state that we're in at the moment. It's been three weeks since the Albanese government announced it would be directing the ACCC to monitor domestic air passage services, yet three weeks later we are debating an utterly useless and inferior replica of what the government is already doing. As we all know, the ACCC had a similar monitoring function under the previous government. However, those across the way scheduled the monitoring to end in June 2023.</para>
<para>Those opposite had no problem with the monitoring scheme coming to an end until suddenly there was some political point scoring to be made, and now we have this bill, a bill that is inferior to the direction that the Treasurer has already made to the ACCC.</para>
<para>This bill does not provide the ACCC with necessary information gathering powers to seek information and data from relevant suppliers to inform observations and recommendations. So, in fact, the opposition's proposed monitoring scheme will be ineffective and largely useless, whereas the Treasurer's direction is not only superior to this bill but it also improves upon the previous monitoring scheme put in place by those opposite. So we've got a better scheme, a hopeless recommendation from the private members' bill, a previous government that had it finishing in June anyway and now a better scheme being proposed by the government.</para>
<para>It's one thing to have a monitoring scheme, but it's important to collect information and data about prices, costs and cancellations. What the Liberals and Nationals forgot is that what actually matters is what comes next—that is, what the government actually does with that information. They need it.</para>
<para>And what good is it commissioning reports that tell you how dire the aviation industry is, unless you want to politically point score, when you don't want to do anything about it, because that's what they're about. They aren't about doing something about it. It's purely about the facade of politics, not about effect and action, because there have been 12 reports under the previous government—those opposite—which found declining service standards and higher prices but were not acted on. Not one single report! And they come here with a bill which is inferior to what the government's announced under a scheme that they proposed to be abolished in June this year. It really sums up the previous government: it's all about the announcement, never about the delivery.</para>
<para>Clearly those opposite didn't think declining service standards and higher prices were an issue while they were in government. That's why they did nothing with 12 reports. In fact, that's why they did nothing about the wide range of issues in the aviation sector for nearly 10 years. For those 10 years the Liberals and Nationals could have fixed the issues that they suddenly claim to care about now.</para>
<para>In contrast to those opposite, the Albanese government will use the ACCC monitoring to help inform the aviation white paper, which is setting the policy direction for the sector out to 2050. That's the difference between those opposite, who talk about aviation and then think about the opportunity to play politics, and this government, which is focused on a longer term strategy for the sector.</para>
<para>It's a recurring theme when it comes to those opposite and the aviation sector. In February 2021, the former government received the Harris review into Sydney airport's demand management scheme. Maybe even those opposite might have listened, maybe even the shadow minister, and of course they did nothing—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, Senator Sheldon! Could you resume your seat. Senators on my left, if you wish to hold a meeting, please leave the chamber. It is distracting. Senator Sheldon, you have the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>They didn't do anything with it, because the former government received the Harris review in February 2021 and nothing was done with it. Low and behold, as soon as the Liberals and Nationals are out of government, it's suddenly an urgent priority! The Harris review in February 2021 and 12 reports—all of a sudden there's time to play politics.</para>
<para>The Liberals and Nationals did a complete 180 on the Qatar Airways. When Qatar Airways came to then Minister Michael McCormack in 2018, he initially said he would be happy to increase their weekly route access from 21 to 28, but then a week later he suddenly changed his mind. He backflipped without reason or explanation and then refused to give them seven routes for another four years. Why? Why did the then minister, Minister McCormack, suddenly backflip on his Qatar decision? As it turns out, he hired a Qantas executive as his new chief of staff!</para>
<para>This brings me to the next piece of rank hypocrisy on display from those opposite: the cosy relationship between the Liberals and Nationals and Alan Joyce and Qantas.</para>
<para>Now they are in opposition, suddenly those opposite are very worried about Joyce's management of the airline. But where were they for the last 15 years?</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Sheldon, resume your seat. Order on my left! Senator Cash! Standing order 197 says that interruptions are out of order. You will listen to Senator Sheldon, provocative as he may be in his points, in silence.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Watt</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you for managing the chamber, Acting Deputy President. I would point out that a number of opposition speakers have been heard in respectful silence, despite the provocative nature of their comments. I'd ask that the same courtesy be extended.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Watt, resume your seat.</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Watt</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Are you incapable of basic courtesy?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Watt, resume your seat. As you pointed out, I was managing the chamber. Putting petrol on a fire is not actually helpful if what you want is an ordered environment. The chamber will respect the standing orders. Standing order 197 says that interruption of speakers is disorderly. Senator Sheldon, you have the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I was talking about the cosy relationship between the Liberals and Nationals and Alan Joyce and Qantas. Now they are in opposition, suddenly those opposite are very worried about Joyce's management of the airline—lo and behold. But where were they for the last 15 years? I know where I was. I was standing with aviation workers whose lives were being destroyed by those opposite and Alan Joyce.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Henderson, I have just called the chamber to order twice. You will respect the standing orders.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Where were they when Ansett collapsed? The Howard government sat on its hands and let it all happen, to the great benefit of Qantas. I was there when Alan Joyce became Qantas CEO. The first thing he did was begin setting up labour hire companies to undercut Qantas's longstanding workplace agreements, something they still support. This was all with the explicit support of the Liberals and Nationals. I was there when Alan Joyce grounded the entire Qantas fleet in 2011 because some of their workers were wearing the wrong-coloured ties as a form of industrial action. Again, the Liberals and Nationals supported Joyce the whole way. I was there when Alan Joyce successfully lobbied the Morrison government to let Virgin collapse during the pandemic, while they gave Qantas $2.7 billion, without obligations. I was there when Alan Joyce illegally sacked 1,700 people. This government intervened in that case, on behalf of the workers. But what did the previous government do? Minister McCormack said that illegally sacking 1,700 people was 'in the best interests of the company going forward'. Christian Porter said that illegally sacking 1,700 people was 'a good model'. Senator Cash said, of illegally sacking 1,700 people, 'Qantas are entitled to make those decisions.' Either those three ministers were improperly influenced by Qantas or they genuinely supported Alan Joyce destroying the lives of thousands of people. Which one was it?</para>
<para>I want to go to the evidence provided by Damien Pollard to the Select Committee on Bilateral Air Services in September. Mr Pollard was one of the 1,700 illegally sacked Qantas workers who were abandoned and left for dead by those opposite. Here's what he said about the level of support he received from those opposite in his struggle against Alan Joyce:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Mr Morrison refused to meet us, and I can remember that quite clearly. It's very hard to explain that we actually felt abandoned by the government of the time because nobody would meet with us, except for the—</para></quote>
<para>Labor—</para>
<quote><para class="block">opposition. The—</para></quote>
<para>Morrison—</para>
<quote><para class="block">government offered no support, and they continued to praise Qantas and say that it was a decision for Qantas. That feeling of abandonment was quite striking. I can remember, many times, various politicians and prime ministers saying, 'We will govern for everybody,' and we just felt that nobody wanted to tackle Qantas. We were left to sink or swim until … the—</para></quote>
<para>Labor—</para>
<quote><para class="block">opposition came in, as well as the TWU, and started supporting us.</para></quote>
<para>Mr Pollard went on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Scott Morrison, as I said before, refused to meet with us. Michael McCormack did meet me once. He said he could look for some support service hotlines for us. I also remember quite clearly that he told me the best thing that ever happened to him was being retrenched in his early 40s. I thought at that time, 'It may have worked for you, but it's not working for a lot of my colleagues.' I thought it was rather a strange comment.</para></quote>
<para>…   …   …</para>
<quote><para class="block">It seems quite strange to say, but the gentleman who we met with that day seemed more interested in telling his own story than listening to our story. That was the common consensus amongst the other delegates who attended that meeting that day.</para></quote>
<para>That is the experience of Qantas workers—desperately trying to get support from those opposite in their fight against Alan Joyce. The best they got was a number for a support line and an anecdote from the then minister about the great opportunity it is to be illegally sacked. Isn't that just disgraceful? Doesn't that really just show up the hypocritical—</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senators on my left, we support the rules-based order globally. We are a pluralist, liberal democracy, which means people who have different views are to be afforded the respect to express those views. If you don't support cancel culture then you will support the standing orders and allow people who say things you don't agree with to have their say in silence, in accordance with standing order 197.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Doesn't this really show the hypocritical attitude from those opposite? They were very happy to do Alan Joyce's dirty work when they were in power, but now are trying to rewrite history. This is in contrast to what Mr Pollard said about the support he got from the Labor opposition. Mr Pollard said to me that, while he was being ignored by every member of the Morrison government—excluding the patronising advice he got from Mr McCormack:</para>
<quote><para class="block">When our now government was in opposition, they did also support us many times about the outsourcing, through private meetings and also in the media …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As a group of baggage handlers we had the opportunity to talk to Mr Albanese, Catherine King, Tony Burke, Kirsty McBain … Linda Burney—</para></quote>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Sheldon, the time for this debate has expired. You will be in continuation.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>13</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>13</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7052" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>In Committee</title>
            <page.no>13</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the bill stand as printed.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In Minister Plibersek's second reading speech she stated one of the objectives of this amendment is to 'support countries without storage capacity to reduce their atmospheric admissions by allowing the export of carbon dioxide streams to countries with available sub-seabed geological storage formations'. My concern is that Australia appears to have a great deal of storage capacity. Conservative estimates put the total at 740 billion tonnes. In 2021, five areas for offshore greenhouse gas storage in Commonwealth waters were identified off the coast of WA and the NT. If this bill is about storage capacity, why is the government proceeding with it, given that we have so much storage capacity right here in Australia?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have indicated to the Senate already that the purpose of this bill is to establish a regulatory framework that would operate in the event that a proponent sought to establish arrangements for the trans-border movement of carbon dioxide.</para>
<para>I've also indicated that, from the Australian government's perspective, projects of this kind will need to stand on their own two feet commercially. If a proponent in Australia seeks to establish a project in the territories of another country, we would, of course, seek to establish a regulatory regime that was effective and appropriate and consistent with our international obligations, and this bill does that. Similarly, if a proponent sought to establish a storage project in Australian territories, and it was intended that the storage would require the transport or movement of carbon dioxide, of course we'd want a regulatory arrangement that supported that appropriately and was consistent with our international obligations. This bill sets up the framework to do that.</para>
<para>As I sought to explain to the Senate in earlier parts of the debate, this bill is not the end of the story in taking decisions of this kind. In fact, it is far from it. It simply establishes the baseline framework that describes the regulatory steps that would then need to be taken for any project to proceed. I'm inclined at this point in the debate to step through how that actually works, because I do feel that some of the questions that have been posed to date, perhaps understandably, don't really respond to this aspect of the legislation that is in front of us.</para>
<para>Before the importation or exportation of CO2 for sequestration could occur, there are a range of things that would need to happen. The first is that this legislation would need to be passed to implement the amendments that were made in 2009 to the London protocol. Once these amendments were passed to our sea-dumping act, to finalise the ratification process we would need to submit official documents to the International Maritime Organization. That would include an instrument of ratification and a declaration of provisional application for the 2009 amendment. Australia would then be in a position to establish a regulatory permitting and approval process under the sea-dumping act to allow projects to proceed. As part of our obligations under the London protocol, we would require CCS projects to demonstrate how they would mitigate any environmental impacts or risks by addressing, at a minimum, key areas: the criteria for carbon capture and storage site selection; an assessment of the environmental impact at selected sites; an assessment of the risk of leakage and appropriate response and mitigation strategies; and requirements for long-term site monitoring, reporting and accountability.</para>
<para>After that, should there be an application from a particular project, before any permit could be issued to any particular project, a bilateral instrument and agreement or arrangement would need to be in place between the two countries, even if that country is not a member of the London protocol. The receiving country must be supportive of accepting any carbon dioxide for sub-seabed sequestration, and they would need to have the necessary regulatory and legal frameworks to manage the monitoring, compliance and verification of CO2 being stored deep under the seabed. It is only after all of those things have taken place that a proponent could apply to the regulator for a permit. I lay that out now because I think an assumption was being made in some of the contributions that this first step represents the entirety of the regulatory arrangements that would be required before any of these projects could proceed.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>To follow up on that contribution, Senator McAllister, you mentioned, 'Should a project be seeking to export carbon dioxide across international boundaries', and in the final part of your contribution you said, 'If a company were to apply to do this'. Could I get clarification based on my questions yesterday around Mr Chris Bowen's comments to the media on 25 and 26 July. I will read them to you again.</para>
<para>As reported in the <inline font-style="italic">Financial Review</inline>, Mr Bowen said that the Barossa project, which is partly owned by Japanese LNG buyer JERA and is intended to ship gas to Japan, needed to be dealt with because it would produce more carbon emissions from one field than the entire Pacific islands. However, he said Labor supported passing special legislation that would allow Santos to send carbon dioxide from Australia to the Bayu-Undan oil and gas field in the Timor Sea. And then he said, 'We've introduced the legislation to enable that to occur.' I wanted to ask you, because you weren't able to answer the question yesterday—you said you hadn't spoken to Mr Bowen or his office or had those conversations, but it's been 16 or so hours since you said that—have you now spoken to Mr Bowen's office? Can you confirm that this 'special legislation' he was referring to in those comments is this legislation we're dealing with today?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Whish-Wilson, I answered this question yesterday. I made it very clear that the legislation before us is part of the government's broader arrangements to ensure that we have an appropriate set of legislative and regulatory arrangements to properly manage CCS projects. This is one part of that.</para>
<para>I'll make this additional point: this chamber had an extensive debate about the safeguard mechanism. As part of that mechanism, this chamber agreed to the imposition of very stringent requirements for new projects, including the Barossa project. We expect all covered entities under the safeguard mechanism to take the necessary steps to reduce their emissions. There's no secret about that. It was the subject of a very extensive debate here on legislation that you voted for. Indeed, as I recall it, Greens political party members were particularly supportive of those aspects of the arrangements that were put in place as part of that debate.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, you talk about assumptions, but of course there are going to be assumptions if you can't answer basic questions like who did the minister consult with over the last three months? I'm interested if, in the last 24 hours, the minister's office has been able to provide you with a list of groups and companies that were consulted by her or her office over the last few months regarding this legislation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator. I think as I indicated in the discussions yesterday, the minister consults widely with a range of environmental organisations. I don't have with me a complete list of the minister's diary over the last three months, and I don't think you'd expect me to.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, what we would expect, as a Senate, is that if questions are asked and you have 24 hours to look into it—it can't be that hard. Someone must know who was consulted with about this legislation. The very curious thing about this is you mentioned the safeguard mechanism going through here. I don't remember this being part of the safeguard mechanism debate, and I think you'll find that the opposition voted against the safeguard mechanism. Now we're in a situation where Labor and the coalition are looking to put through a bill with loopholes to potentially expand the fossil fuel industry. And you wonder why we're concerned. Somehow the Labor government think that they are exempt from atmospheric physics. Who did the minister meet with over the last few months, consulting on this very important piece of legislation?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Pocock, I'm not sure if we were here for the same debate in relation to the safeguard mechanism, but my recollection, and I think the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> will confirm this, is that there was a quite explicit discussion about the emissions obligations that would be placed on new gas projects, and those limitations were aligned with international best practice and would require those covered entities to reduce their emissions.</para>
<para>There are a range of pathways, as was well canvassed in the Senate debate about how that might happen. One option, of course, is the purchase of offsets. Senator Pocock, I recall you taking a keen interest in ensuring that the offsets that would be available for purchase under that scheme would be sufficiently robust. The other option, of course, is technologies to reduce the emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere from projects of this kind. I have been very clear in the debate so far—and, indeed, so has the government more generally—that this legislation represents one part of our broader efforts, which have been widely telegraphed, to ensure that the regulatory arrangements for carbon capture and storage projects are up to scratch.</para>
<para>This is one part of it, and I will reiterate the point that we have an international obligation to do it. We've signed on to an international protocol that says that, where these projects proceed, we absolutely should regulate them, we should require an environmental assessment, we should require parties to come to a mutual agreement about the movement of carbon dioxide across national borders and we should require the highest standards of assessment, by both exporting parties and importing parties, should projects of this kind proceed.</para>
<para>I'll conclude with this final point, which is that this is a really difficult transition that we're making to 2050. When I look at it, I think about our national economy, I think about our energy security, I think about our region, I think about our international energy partners—their transition and the way that we support them in the transition that they are also seeking to make and the commitments they have made under international treaties to reduce their own carbon emissions—and I think about the development requirements of neighbours in the Pacific and in the Southeast Asian region more broadly and their interests in pursuing development opportunities.</para>
<para>My conclusion is that the legislation before us is one part of a very large policy agenda that is required to support not just Australia's transition towards net zero by 2050 but the transitions that are underway in our region as well. I understand that there are senators in this place who seek to characterise this in a way that is inconsistent with the material before them, because it supports a particular political position, but I actually think this is a really serious set of economic questions that we're grappling with and that our economic partners are grappling with. It's a transition of consequence for current and future generations the world over. So I'll put it to you that what's before us is consistent with a responsible, deliberate and determined attempt to support not only the transition of our economy towards net zero but also the transition of the economies of our partners.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would maybe be tempted to believe you if the government were actually willing to rule out this legislation being used to expand the fossil fuel industry. I am so sick and tired of the major parties pointing at Independents and minor parties and saying, 'There are some in this chamber that may disagree with this, but in the real world ...' It's not us; it's climate scientists, it's experts and it's most people in the community. You wonder why the major parties' votes are tanking. It's because you've got a unity ticket on not taking climate action. You talk about futures, the Pacific and development. It's so disingenuous. You cannot talk about transition at the same time as having legislation that could potentially expand the fossil fuel industry—and you won't even rule that out.</para>
<para>You want to talk about all the other stuff—the experimental stuff, the London protocol, harmonisation, ratifying this or that protocol and all this stuff—but you won't rule out this being used to expand the fossil fuel industry. And you want to talk about the future.</para>
<para>There's our future up there: the young people up there in the gallery. And what are we doing in this place? We are debating legislation that will allow projects like Barossa to go ahead, the dirtiest offshore gas project in Australia's history. We've never considered exploiting gas with that much CO2 before, but ha! Here's a solution! Just allow Santos to pump this CO2 down, and hopefully they can collect enough of it, and she'll be right!</para>
<para>Look what happened with Gorgon. That project was approved on the basis that they would capture 80 per cent of their CO2, and they've just vented most of it. I'll find the figures, but maybe they sequestered 1.6 million tonnes and have vented 3.4 million tonnes. And this is what we're doing to young people's futures. We've got major parties in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry. They'll forever deny it, but what other explanation are we meant go with when you're making decisions that aren't based on common sense, aren't based on what scientists are telling us, aren't based on what most Australians want, which is a liveable future, security for their family, being able to enjoy this incredible continent. We have ecosystems on the brink here in Australia. The Great Barrier Reef is struggling, yet you continue to dance around this legislation, talking about how this isn't really about expanding the fossil fuel industry, but you won't rule that out. It's extraordinary, and more Australians need to know what's going on here.</para>
<para>You've got the coalition who won't vote for anything—show me anything that they'll vote for—but legislation that potentially expands the fossil fuel industry is something that they'll get behind. They sit there quietly. I think Senator Duniam is maybe the only person to have spoken on this bill, as the shadow environment spokesperson. The coalition is quiet. Meanwhile, we have the Labor government trying to explain away this in nice terms, make it sound good. This bill stinks. You won't find too many people who know about where we are in terms of the climate crisis and what a transition actually looks like. A transition looks like moving away from fossil fuels, not expanding the fossil fuel industry.</para>
<para>For the young people up there, the government has this bill which does a whole bunch of things, and one of the things it could do is allow new gas projects to go ahead, because someone like Santos can pipe their CO2 under the ocean to a neighbouring country maybe, hopefully. That's off our books then. Santos can deal with their scope 1 and 2 emissions and send their gas overseas. One of the other things—and I know this is something that the entire crossbench is united on. Yesterday we heard the minister talk about the benefits of the gas industry to Australia. I would like to know—this is my question, and it's taken five minutes to get here: how much petroleum resource rent tax have Australians received from offshore LNG production to date?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Pocock, this is not a debate about tax, and I haven't come prepared to answer questions about the PRRT, but I feel quite certain that this is something that could have been asked in estimates last week had you wished to—and you may well have done so; I wasn't there for that part of the hearings.</para>
<para>I will just get to the heart of your proposition, Senator. As I was saying to you in my earlier answer, under the safeguard mechanism, new gas fields must reduce and offset reservoir emissions to net zero from day one. That is world's best practice. And world's best practice does require CCS, and that's why we are taking the steps across a range of different pieces of legislation to ensure that the way we address CCS is sufficiently robust.</para>
<para>It appears from your contributions that you do not consider CCS part of a net zero future. I think that's the position that you're putting here, although I did hear you earlier in the debate acknowledge that there were some sectors for which you do think it's appropriate.</para>
<para>It's worth reiterating that the IPCC, the International Energy Agency, the International Renewable Energy Agency, the Climate Change Authority and CSIRO all recognise that a significant amount of CCUS will be required to meet the net zero challenges globally. If you accept that that's the case, that it is a feature of our pathway to net zero, then of course we should have a regulatory arrangement in place that enables that.</para>
<para>What is more surprising to me is the proposition that appears to be being put from the crossbench that you're going to vote against a bill that puts in place an environmental regulatory arrangement to ensure that the CCS projects that do proceed proceed inconsistent with the international arrangements to manage our shared ocean resource. I actually find that extraordinary.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This has been a very respectful debate, yesterday and today. There were some comments across the chamber. I'll add my comments, too, Senator McAllister, that I respect your professionalism and you as a human being, so please don't take this personally. There are two things that I do want to take umbrage. Firstly, you just said that you answered my questions. The fact that I've had to ask them 10 times would suggest that you haven't answered my questions. In my opinion, you've just misled the Senate chamber. I asked you very clear questions: yes or no, were those comments by Minister Bowen relating to this legislation? And you have repeatedly refused to say yes or no. We all know it's yes, but I can't get you to say that. Fine, that's politics, but for you, then, to say that some senators in this chamber are trying to characterise this debate as though this legislation is enabling a single gas project, being Barossa, well, that's not my characterisation, Senator McAllister, through you, Chair; that is the characterisation of Mr Bowen on public record. I can read it to you again. He was quoted as saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We have introduced the legislation to enable that—</para></quote>
<para>being the Barossa project to occur—</para>
<para>He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Labor supported passing special legislation that would allow Santos to send carbon dioxide from Australia to the Bayu-Undan oil and gas field in the Timor Sea.</para></quote>
<para>That is not my characterisation. I'm asking you a question about your colleague's characterisation as reported in the media. I want to put it on record. You have, 10 times, refused to acknowledge that this legislation is what Mr Bowen is referring to in his public comments. You have had time to check with his office, and you've refused to. I just want to make that very clear.</para>
<para>There are a couple of things I want to raise and ask questions on, although I'm sure Senator Pocock would like to ask some questions in response to your last contribution. You mentioned that the East Timorese government hasn't signed on to the London protocol but that you would require them to do so before there would be any vote.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>No.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>No. Okay, I'll take that back. They wouldn't be required to do so, but there would be a memorandum of understanding in relation to Santos and their partners piping their pollution 100 kilometres through Commonwealth waters to the Timor-Leste boundary. My first question is: are we talking about regulating emissions? Are we talking about scope 1 emissions here? If we have a memorandum of understanding, are we dealing with scope 1 emissions? What about scope 2 and 3 emissions from what will be the largest and dirtiest fossil fuel project in our nation's history if it is to proceed?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Whish-Wilson, I will try and answer your question in this way. I stepped through the things that would be necessary for any project to apply for a permit under the regime that's proposed. Amongst those would be a bilateral agreement between the two nations. My understanding is that any such agreement would be broad in nature and would relate to the broad approach that the two parties would undertake in relation to projects that were brought before them. So I think you are conflating two distinct things: the approach that might be taken to permitting and the approach that might be taken to a bilateral agreement. I did step through earlier in the debate the things that the London protocol would require a bilateral agreement to cover. I don't propose to go through those again now, unless you specifically require me to.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When will we get this information? When will we get an idea of what will be required in these bilateral agreements? Essentially what the government is doing today is asking us to take the first step towards helping facilitate the Barossa gas project by signing the London protocol. I don't understand how a geological formation which is a depleted oil and gas field, Bayu-Undan, is going to be used for CCS if it's in someone else's territorial waters. How will the Australian government have any jurisdiction over that project if it's in someone else's waters, particularly if that country hasn't signed onto the London protocol? You may have a memorandum of understanding, but under that memorandum of understanding will the Australian government, for example, have any kind of ability to audit whether that CCS project is actually working?</para>
<para>Senator Pocock has raised the fact that the Gorgon project, a $3 billion dud which was talked up all around the world, has been plagued with problems since it started. It is in Australian territory, underneath Barrow Island. It has failed to sequester more than a third of the carbon offset that was committed to. A very big multinational company has spent a lot of money on that and it hasn't worked anywhere near what was required or what was expected. We have to know this if we are going to be taking the first step before we get this legislation further down the track. This is the first time this has happened—that we are dealing with allowing Australian companies to pipe their pollution to another country's territorial boundaries. Why would we accept this first step if we don't actually know any of the details about what's to come? How does the Australian government, under the safeguard mechanism, audit whether a carbon capture and storage area in the depleted Bayu-Undan gas field in the Timor Sea in East Timor's territorial waters is successful? That's the first question. Can you deal with that one first, please, Minister.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am not in a position to speculate about how we would deal with a specific project application that's not before the government. What I can lay out for you is the approach that would be taken in developing an agreement with any nation in relation to the bilateral agreements that we're referring to. The Australian government, under our obligation under the London protocol, would require arrangements or agreements to be in place with the receiving country regardless of their London protocol status before a permit to export carbon dioxide for offshore sequestration could be granted. The details and status of these agreements or arrangements will be decided between the exporting and receiving country on a case-by-case basis and would address matters, including but not limited to, responsibilities for maintaining sequestered carbon dioxide in any emissions, the ability of countries to accurately monitor emissions and any leakage from transport and storage. For a capture and transport element of a project that was located in Australia, if an application for a permit was received, the proponents would be required to then describe all of the consultations with advisory bodies and government authorities.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to clarify something. Senator David Pocock made a comment, saying the Great Barrier Reef is in disaster. We have schoolchildren here as well, and I really want to say that UNESCO's World Heritage Committee have not listed it as an endangered zone. It's not endangered. Actually, it is in pristine condition and it's in good health. There's nothing wrong with the Great Barrier Reef at all. I'm sick of it being used as a sign of climate change when there's nothing wrong with it.</para>
<para>I'll go back to the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 the government has put up. The sea dumping bill is not what it seems. The government wants us to believe it is about regulating carbon capture and storage in geological formations under the sea. But the hidden purpose of the bill is to support the carbon trading market, which only adds to the cost of living for Australians. When companies cannot meet carbon emission reduction targets through the failed technology of carbon capture and storage underground, they will be forced to buy carbon reduction credits. These carbon credits are either created by the government out of thin air or created through land use change, where farmers are being encouraged to stop producing food and to turn the land back to bush. The argument put forward by the government is that turning agricultural land back to bushland will suck carbon out of the air and store it. In fact, the bush becomes a fire hazard, and, when it burns, the carbon is released back into the air. But that carbon emission does not count under the carbon credit accounting rules. Carbon trading is a scam in which money is ripped out of the family budget and put into the hands of government and carbon traders.</para>
<para>Let me make it quite clear: I am not against gas exploration or fossil fuels at all. I think that we need mining, and it's what has propped up the budget in this country. The billions of dollars it brings in is important to the economy, the security of this nation and the wellbeing of many Australians, and we do need the taxes.</para>
<para>Senator Pocock asked a question about the PRRT that we get from the North West Shelf. I can tell him. We export about $78 billion in gas each year from the North West Shelf, and over the years we've accumulated about $300 million in taxes. There was no PRRT. The companies Chevron, ExxonMobil and Shell accumulated about $400 billion in tax credits through the PRRT. That was actually brought in by the Labor government and supported by the coalition government, which I've been talking about since I came back to this place in 2016. Why were we not getting money out of it? Due to that, they've now reduced the 100 per cent down to 90 per cent. The Labor Party did that. The PRRT was one of the first things I spoke to the current Prime Minister about. They actually have changed it. In the last budget they were expecting about $2.4 billion in tax from a $78 billion export. As I said, I'm not against coal and gas mining, but I am against the carbon credits.</para>
<para>Minister, are these all carbon credits through capture and storage? As we've heard—Senator Pocock has spoken about this and so has Senator Whish-Wilson—Barrow Island is run by Chevron, and that is not working. They've put about $3 billion into it for carbon capture and storage, and it has failed. If you're saying they can do the sea dumping, capture and storage, what is your plan if that fails like it has done with Barrow Island? What's your plan?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the bill stand as printed. Senator Hanson, you have more questions?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I have more questions. Sorry, I was waiting for a response from the government. She refused to respond to it. I've asked her a question: what is the plan of the government if this fails?</para>
<para>You're putting up a bill about carbon capture and storage. If this fails, as it has failed—there's no proof to it; it hasn't worked anywhere around the world, yet you are imposing it. I'll tell you what's going to happen. It costs these companies a lot of money, as we've seen—$3 billion for Barrow Island—to implement this program or whatever it is they're trying to do. That money has to be passed on to someone. Therefore, it will be a cost to the Australian people. If you are going to implement this, what is your plan if this fails? If you're going to force companies to do this or to get carbon credits, what is your back-up plan if it fails?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator Hanson. I apologise for pausing for a moment after your previous contribution; I was trying to reflect carefully on the specific question you were asking me and get the best information I could provide to you. I think the answer to your question is: this bill doesn't impose any obligations on anyone to pursue a project of this kind.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>You're putting up a regulation about carbon capture and storage. You're forcing these companies to pay carbon credits. If they don't do something about this and put in carbon capture and storage, they're going to have to pay carbon credits. Is that true?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hanson, the bill before us creates a set of regulatory obligations for companies that choose to initiate a carbon capture and storage project. They may do that for a range of reasons, including to meet their obligations under the safeguard legislation. That was a debate that took place earlier in the year; I'm not sure if you were present or not in the chamber for that debate.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>You've put it in the regulations that these companies can take it up whether they want to or not—that they decide whether they want to do it or not. But there is no proof that this system works. You're lying to the Australian people and you're lying to these companies—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hanson, I just might—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Okay, not 'lying'—'misleading'. You're misleading the Australian people into believing something that's never worked anywhere is going to work. Please tell me if I'm wrong; I have no problem with that. You tell me if I'm wrong. Where else has it worked in the world?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think the evidence from Geoscience Australia to the committee that examined this was that there is no recorded or reported evidence of any leakage from a commercial CO2 storage site. Senator Hanson, I said this to you yesterday in response to a question you asked me: I think the more relevant issue is whether these projects will emerge as a commercially sustainable proposition. That's why, in my contributions over the last few days, I've emphasised the commercial decisions taken by the proponents themselves.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Following on from Senator Hanson's question: she mentioned the safeguard mechanism, and the minister herself has mentioned a zero baseline for new projects. I'm interested in how this works with the safeguard mechanism for reducing greenhouse gas emissions at Australia's large industrial facilities. Could companies develop new coal and gas projects and still meet their safeguard commitments by shipping the equivalent of their scope 1 and 2 emissions overseas using this legislation?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think speculating about what companies might choose to do in response—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator David Pocock</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's not speculation.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I think asking me to speculate about what companies may or may not decide to do to meet their safeguard obligations is beyond what is reasonable in the scope of a debate which is about an entirely different piece of legislation.</para>
<para>I've been really clear over the course of the last few days as we've debated this that this bill simply seeks to establish a framework that would enable the cross border movement of CO2. I've also stepped through the very extensive processes that would need to be concluded before any such export or import could take place, and I have emphasised that these are, in the end, whether or not projects proceed in relation to carbon capture and storage, contingent on commercial decisions combined with the ability to meet the broad range of regulatory requirements that would be in place.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>To get more specific in order to seek an answer, given you have DCCEEW and Mr Bowen's department there, could this framework, and the extensive safeguards that would need to be in place to allow something to be developed or proceed under it, allow new coal or gas projects to meet their safeguard commitments by exporting the equivalent of their scope 1 and 2 emissions overseas?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think you're asking the same question in a different way, and what I'm saying to you is the same as my previous answer, which is that I'm not really in a position to speculate about projects that have not been suggested or put before the government.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Sorry, Chair. To characterise a question that relates to what this legislation could enable as speculation doesn't seem to cut it. We've got Minister Bowen's department there and Minister Plibersek's department there. This has an answer. That's why the ministers are on the big bucks. They're there to answer these questions and be across the details of this.</para>
<para>We're being asked to vote on this legislation, and I am wanting to know from the government if this new piece of legislation that ratifies the London protocol—and I understand there will be a whole range of things that have to happen for a project to go ahead—enables projects to meet their obligations under the safeguard mechanism? Should this pass, these are two interacting pieces of legislation. Can they meet those obligations by exporting, using this sea-dumping bill, the equivalent of their scope 1 and 2 emissions?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Pocock, can I answer this in two ways? The first is that clearly carbon capture and storage is an option for parties that have obligations under the safeguard mechanism, and the second point I would make out is that all emissions of safeguard facilities are measured under detailed requirements under the NGER Act and any emission that is above the baseline that's been set for that facility must be offset. So I think you understand the operation of the safeguard mechanism. But, as I say to you, there is no proposal before the government for a specific project and, as I've tried to indicate in many contributions, all of these things are commercial questions. The safeguard mechanism is designed to incentivise investments in arrangements for emissions reduction. I'm not aware of a project of the kind you've asked me to speculate about. If such a project came before the government, it would be subject to the same assessments and arrangements that I've laid out over the course of the last couple of days of debate.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to get back to Timor-Leste a little bit later. Minister, when you opened your contribution yesterday, you mentioned that there were a number of projects or companies seeking to import CO2 into Australian carbon capture and storage projects or geological formations. Could you say again who they were, please? I failed to write them down yesterday.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yesterday, I indicated that, as I understand it—and of course, one's knowledge can never be entirely complete in this regard, and I don't know all of the commercial activities of all of the businesses in the world—there are four projects in Australia that are currently exploring the possibilities to import CO2. They are: Sea Store 1 in Western Australia, CarbonNet in Victoria, SEA CCS hub in Victoria and the Darwin LNG hub in the Northern Territory.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you. In relation to these potential domestic applicants—and this legislation, which allows the trans-border transport or processing of pollution from other countries into Australian offshore geological formations—you mentioned that any potential export permit—or maybe not a permit but any agreement—with, for example, the Timor government would require a bilateral memorandum of understanding. What work has been done on the regulation of domestic importers of pollution? In particular, how does this sea-dumping legislation that we're passing today—in relation to the London protocol—interact with the EPBC Act as it stands now? How does it impact with the OPGGS Act that NOPSEMA and others are covered by? What information can you give us today on how this is going to work for domestic projects importing pollution?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This bill is about the London protocol, and I think I have explained previously that the London protocol requires agreements to be made between nations before permits may be issued. Any project that took place in Australian waters would be subject to the existing regulatory arrangements that would apply for any CCS project that was initiated now. Potentially, that engages with quite a wide range of legislative and regulatory arrangements that go to environment protection, occupational health and safety, and a range of other questions.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Is this legislation retrospective or is it only for new projects?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This legislation is relevant, quite narrowly, to projects that involve the movement of carbon dioxide across national borders. Because the regulatory arrangements that would enable such movement are not in place, there aren't any projects at the moment to which this legislation would apply.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Does this impact on the gas off the North West Shelf of Western Australia?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm really thinking about how to answer your question, Senator Hanson, because this bill is a framework that would enable regulatory arrangements if somebody proposed a project for carbon capture and storage. So, I think that probably answers your question, because the arrangements for new gas projects sit in different parts of legislation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>So, we've got so many leases up there for gas projects to go ahead, and at the moment a lot of gas projects are going ahead and can be taken up at any time. Under this legislation, will they be forced or told they must take up carbon capture or storage? How does it work? Just tell me how they counteract their carbon emissions that they are releasing at the moment? How are you dealing with the North West Shelf and what they're doing up there?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This bill doesn't require Australian projects to do anything additional to the arrangements that are presently in place for them.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you. I just want to clarify the record here. Previously when I asked the minister about the leakages from carbon the minister said that there have been no leakages of carbon from carbon capture projects. Is that true? Is that your answer, Minister?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The advice that I provided to you was to quote the advice provided by Geoscience Australia.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to put on the record, then, comments from the Australian Marine Conservation Society:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The risks of leaks and pollution occurring in the development and any project phase are very real, as shown by the world's biggest CCS plant in operation Chevron's Gorgon project off the coast of north-west WA. Each year it leaks millions of tonnes of high methane greenhouse gas pollution that it promised would be sequestered below the ocean floor.</para></quote>
<para>Minister, do you accept that?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm trying to provide to you the information that's been provided to us and indeed I think to the House committee by Geoscience Australia, who, as I indicated earlier, stated that there is no recorded or reported evidence of any leakage from a commercial storage site. And I think the evidence is that if a suitable site is selected and the gas is stored and monitored carefully then the risk of carbon dioxide gas leaking is very low.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Just to follow up that question from Senator Hanson: my understanding is that the longest established CCS project in the ocean, in Norway—the Sleipner project—has consistently leaked CO2, and that's well documented. In fact, it's one of the most studied geological formations on the planet. It's interesting that Geoscience Australia hasn't been able to read the literature that's available. It's also reflected in the submissions made to the inquiry. I just wanted to put that on record. Is that something that you're aware of, Minister?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think we'd simply make the point that the responsibilities around emissions from carbon dioxide under the NGER arrangements and the safeguard mechanism aren't changed by the bill here.</para>
<para>I've put to you the evidence that was put to the House inquiry. You and Senator Hanson have put different information. In the end, these questions are the responsibility of proponents.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, could I turn to permits. The bill says that the minister may grant permits for the dumping of waste and other matter into Australian waters for a marine geoengineering activity if the minister can satisfy themselves on a range of matters. One of these matters is outlined in proposed subsection (7C)(b), which states:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… pollution of the marine environment from the placement of wastes or other matter for that activity would, as far as practicable, be prevented or reduced to a minimum …</para></quote>
<para>What does 'reduced to a minimum' mean in this context? Is there a relevant standard that applies in assisting the minister to determine what threshold of pollution can be accepted in this context?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator Pocock; I appreciate your waiting while I sought advice on that question. It's important to note that the provisions in the London protocol and also in the legislation that's before us go to scientific research activities. They don't seek to enable commercial activities of this kind, for example. In part, the research that is required is required so as to understand what impacts might arise from geoengineering activities in a marine environment. We should be cautious about it and we should understand what the impacts are if activities like this are to take place in our oceans. That's the reason for establishing a regulatory framework. It's so that we can gather information about it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Again, there's no information from the government. If you read 'reduced to a minimum'—you'd expect, when they've got a bill that's coming through the parliament, that they could maybe give you a little bit more detail, that there's a standard when it comes to 'minimum'. This is such a stitch-up. This legislation is a stitch-up. When it comes to climate, Labor are a little bit better than the coalition—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Duniam</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Oh!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Sorry, Senator Duniam, you had a terrible track record over the last decade. But here we see them teaming up and potentially looking to guillotine debate on something that the government won't rule out the expansion of the fossil fuel industry. It's so negligent, when Queensland is on fire in October. We're sitting in this place, supposedly here to represent our states and territories, to make decisions that are in the best interests of people, of Australians, of this continent, not of fossil fuel companies, not of Santos and Woodside, and yet with this bill the government wants to talk about everything that this bill can do except the thing that we know is the reason they've brought it forward at this time—to facilitate the expansion of the fossil fuel industry against the advice of climate scientists and against what Australians want.</para>
<para>Australians love this place. This is our home. We should be living and making decisions like we're going to be here for a long time. This is short-termism at its worst. This is the time when we have to genuinely undertake a transition and we have a government who wants to talk all about the transition: 'Look over here. We're approving renewable projects. How great is it? We're moving in this direction at the same time we're expanding the fossil fuel industry. But don't listen to the scientists. Don't listen to crossbenchers, who are accountable to their communities, who don't take political donations in 2023 from fossil fuel companies.'</para>
<para>A long time ago, Labor said that tobacco is addictive and it causes lung cancer—as someone whose gran suffers from emphysema, I can see the results. So they said, 'Okay, we're not going to take donations from big tobacco, because it's not in our community's best interests.' But if we look at climate change and the fossil fuel companies that are fuelling this, the UN is telling us that between 2030 and 2050 we're looking at a quarter of a million excess deaths a year. On that basis, you'd think that if the Labor Party were genuine about their commitment to the community then they would say, 'We're not going to take donations from the fossil fuel industry—from fossil fuel companies.' Even if they're not being influenced, the perception is that they are. Otherwise, why on earth would they bring in this most stinky legislation? This stinks! I didn't even have to turn on the TV; I knew when we had started the debate because I could smell it in my office! This is terrible legislation.</para>
<para>This is legislation that will do things that might be good when it comes to experimentation and having a framework, but which won't rule out the expansion of the fossil fuel industry. And they'll still keep on taking donations. They'll keep trying to tell us, 'We take donations, but it doesn't influence us,' and, 'This project is definitely not about Santos,' even though they've been talking about this legislation and even though Minister Bowen has been referencing this legislation. We can't even get the minister to give the Senate a straight answer and say: 'Actually, we'll come clean with you: Minister Bowen has been talking about this legislation and here it is. And, guess what? We've got the numbers to get it through, because we've got our mates in the coalition who will vote against everything except loopholes for the fossil fuel industry.'</para>
<para>It is just so incredibly disappointing! It's just so disappointing to have a Labor government talk the talk on climate and get elected, saying: 'We're going to take this seriously! We'll invest in the transition.' That's great, but they're not willing to make the tough decisions and say to the fossil fuel industry: 'You've had your day, but you're not our future and we're going to listen to climate scientists. We're going to put Australians ahead of the profits of the fossil fuel industry.' They can't even say it's ahead of revenue, because when it comes to things like the petroleum resource rent tax, we've got major parties who don't care. They've allowed the gas industry, basically, to help write these taxes and water them down to the point where, last time I checked at estimates, not a single cent was paid for offshore LNG. Not a single cent! Sure, maybe we got PRRT for some oil off Victoria. But for offshore LNG—and we export 75 per cent of it—there's not a cent for Australians. That's our gas; once it's gone, it is gone.</para>
<para>I know that Labor hate it when political donations are raised; at every opportunity they'll try to say, 'It's not because of political donations or the influence of the fossil fuel industry.' But I say to people here: why else would we have a government facilitating the expansion of the fossil fuel industry when we lived through the bushfires, we're heading into a drought, we've got parts of Queensland on fire in October and we're living through the hottest year on record? On record! But it's: 'Oh, well, we've really just got to keep doing this. Sorry, Australians.' There's no good reason not to rule out the use of this legislation for the expansion of the fossil fuel industry.</para>
<para>I'll take Senator McAllister at her word that there is a range of things that are potentially good about this legislation: it will ratify protocols and have some sort of overarching framework for activities.</para>
<para>If that's the intention, accept the amendment that I will move later—which Dr Helen Haines, the member for Indi, moved in the lower house—that explicitly rules out the use of this to expand the fossil fuel industry. It seems like a very simple proposition. Instead, we just hear weasel words. We hear talking around that issue and putting up all these other things: 'How could you vote against ratifying the London protocol? How could you vote against having things in place?' I say to the government: how can you proceed with this? How can you knowingly facilitate the expansion of the fossil fuel industry and then look Australians in the eyes and say, 'We care about you and your future'?</para>
<para>The major parties can point at Independents, who are ultimately responsible to their communities, all they like and say, 'There may be some in this place that disagree on climate.' It's not me. It's not minor parties and Independents. It's climate scientists. It's people who have spent their entire lives working on this, many of whom are devastated by the lack of action from the Albanese government. Many of them have publicly spoken about the grief, as a climate scientist, of having your work disregarded and of considering: 'Do I even continue being a climate scientist if governments aren't going to listen—if the Labor government isn't going to listen? Do I need to do something else to raise concerns for my future and my children's future?'</para>
<para>I know that's a long ramble. I'm sure at some point there will be a guillotine on this. But these are very legitimate questions to ask, because it doesn't seem to me like we're getting any answers from the government to basic things like: who did the minister consult with in the drafting and preparation of this legislation? What we're hearing from the government is, 'Australians don't need to know.'</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't think there was a question in there. Senator Hanson, I'll come to you, but I'm mindful Senator Duniam is seeking the call as well.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Hanson</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't mind so long as Senator Duniam is not going to guillotine debate.</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Hanson. Senator Duniam.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On the issue of guillotine, I'm happy to sit here for as long as it takes to get the answers to these questions that are being asked with such good intentions. So, no, no guillotine from the coalition's point of view, as far as I'm aware. We'll see what comes forth from the government down the track. I share Senator Pocock's disappointment that there is a Labor government! He had a few extra points around why he was disappointed, but I'm just generally disappointed in that fact.</para>
<para>There were a couple of references in the last contribution, and I want to go through a couple of them. The first one was 'a stitch-up'. I think looking at the history of how we got to this point is incredibly important. The context around this debate and this legislation is an important thing to bear in mind as we cast our votes and decide whether to support this legislation or not. The minister and others in this debate have referred to the safeguard mechanism. We proudly opposed that piece of legislation, because it was bad legislation, but it passed—in a stitch-up with that far end of the chamber, in cahoots with the government. We outlined our opposition to that. I will make it very clear—based on the gestures from the Leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation—that, Senator Hanson, you opposed the legislation as well, because it was bad legislation for a range of reasons.</para>
<para>Let me make sure those listening understand what this legislation did. It set an arbitrary target around emissions reductions for the largest emitters in this country to meet by a certain point in time, and if they couldn't meet those emissions reduction targets they would then have to pay a penalty for doing so—if they, on the way through, couldn't obtain credits to offset those emissions that they were generating. That sledgehammer to deal with this issue—not to work with industry but to force them to a point and tax the life out of them if they didn't comply—meant that we were going to face cost-of-living increases.</para>
<para>This is the backdrop against which we are operating at this point in time. The stitch up that was done at that point in time under that legislation, the backdrop against which we are now debating this legislation—and I accept some of the points that are being made—is about making a terrible situation better. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't sit there and say: 'You know what? We're going to turn the tap off and really tighten the business conditions for these immense economic contributors in our nation, the energy generators and manufacturers, but then we're going to make sure they have no capacity in any way whatsoever to, under the safeguard mechanism, comply with these obligations. We're going to head them off at every pass and make sure they can't do business here.' We are living in a cost-of-living crisis which gets worse day by day. Just yesterday we saw interest rates head through the roof again.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You sit down at the end of the chamber and heckle away as if these things don't matter. Well they do when you go out into the real world and understand how people are struggling to pay their mortgages. Every month it is getting harder and harder. It's the same with their power bills too. The cost of insurance and the cost of groceries gets worse and worse, yet we wave through legislation like the safeguard mechanism and then we don't do a damn thing to assist those businesses that employ thousands of Australians to create immense economic opportunities and keep our country's economy ticking over. We want to head that off at the pass now. There are no solutions and no way forward. This mess is of the government's own making. We wouldn't be here needing to do these things if the safeguard didn't pass and we'd found a better, more meaningful way to deal with carbon emissions, rather than jamming these businesses into the situation they were forced into.</para>
<para>Senator Pocock also mentioned how there's a lack of detail in this legislation. The minister hasn't been able to answer questions. I share Senator Pocock and Senator Whish-Wilson's frustrations, because I remember standing in this very spot when we debated the safeguard mechanism, something those senators I just mentioned happily supported to pass through this place, with all the disastrous consequences that will now flow. There was no detail then. I remember standing here for hours on end asking about particular situations: whether a ticket on a V/Line train in Victoria was going to go up as a result—couldn't tell us that. Whether certain refineries would be able to continue to do work at the same level of cost inputs—couldn't guarantee that. Whether a single job would be lost overseas because of the offshoring of carbon emissions as a result of us pricing ourselves out of the market—couldn't guarantee that, either. That detail was missing, but we were happy to vote for it then. Suddenly we must have the detail we're looking for before we vote for it.</para>
<para>This is about finding solutions to a terrible situation this government has put us in. Dealing with carbon emissions is a priority, sure, but there is no answer from many making contributions to this debate on the cost-of-living crisis that has been inflicted upon us by government mismanagement and bad legislation. There will not be a guillotine, and I'm looking forward to listening to the rest of this debate. I think it's important to remember how we got here and why we got here: the safeguard, bad legislation and the cost-of-living crisis getting worse and worse because of a Labor-Green stitch up.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There is no question in that. Senator Whish-Wilson.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Duniam's contribution deserves a response. The biggest crisis we face is the climate crisis. We know it has been one of the great challenges of our time. I asked senators to read and acknowledge a report put out by the Climate Council this morning, <inline font-style="italic">Code blue: our oceans in crisis</inline>. It's very topical for today's debate and for the legislation that's before us. Senator McAllister talks about reaching net zero and international obligations under the London protocol. We also know that the International Energy Agency has made it very clear that the only way we're going to achieve our 1.5 degree warming target is to leave all new fossil fuel projects in the ground. But here we are today in the Australian Senate taking the first steps towards facilitating certainly one of the biggest carbon bombs in this nation's history, the Barossa project, but potentially many others.</para>
<para>I want to run through this Climate Council report very briefly. The authors were Wesley Morgan, Simon Bradshaw, Tishiko King, Jane Gardener, Lesley Hughes, Professor David Karoly and Gretta Pecl, who I'm sure Senator Duniam knows is a very well respected Tasmanian scientist on the IPCC panel.</para>
<para>The key findings of the report, of which there are six, are very important. The first finding is:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The health of the planet's oceans, and human survival, are intrinsically linked.</para></quote>
<para>And they go into a bit of detail and background on why we need to pay attention to what's going on in the oceans. For a lot of people, what goes on under the sea is out of mind and out of sight, but I can tell you, from the work that I and many other scientists and other senators have been doing—fisheries and a whole range of things—things are radically changing under our oceans with climate change.</para>
<para>The second point they make is:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The world's oceans are absorbing mind-boggling amounts of excess heat resulting from human-induced global warming.</para></quote>
<list>The ocean has absorbed 93 percent of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gas emissions.</list>
<list>The rate of ocean warming has more than doubled since the mid 1990s.</list>
<list>Today the ocean is absorbing excess heat energy equivalent to five Hiroshima bomb explosions every second, or enough to boil Sydney Harbour every eight minutes—</list>
<para>to put that in context for Australians. The report goes on:</para>
<quote><para class="block">By absorbing so much heat, the ocean has lulled us into a false sense of security, masking the true extent of human interference in the climate system. It is now beginning to buckle, with serious consequences.</para></quote>
<para>I am well aware of these serious consequences, and I know most Australians who live in coastal communities are also well aware. The report goes on:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The oceans are also absorbing more than 30 percent of the extra carbon dioxide emitted from human activities, slowing its build-up in the atmosphere. However, as emissions rise, the ocean will become less effective as a carbon sink.</para></quote>
<para>The third key point they make is:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Abrupt and concerning changes to the ocean are now starting to outpace scientific predictions. Experts are deeply worried—</para></quote>
<para>including the experts who wrote this report. I have been to Senate inquiries and heard leading climate scientists say: 'Senator, we got it wrong. The step changes we are seeing are much worse than we ever predicted.' And we can see that in the physical world around us, if we just open our eyes and look. The report goes on:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In a survey of 30 ocean and climate scientists around the world, more than half said ocean changes are occurring faster than models projected.</para></quote>
<para>There's some honesty there. They don't have all the information. There are uncertainties in any model. But these scientists are saying that they're consistently underpredicting or underestimating the impacts. The report goes on:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Almost two-third … said ocean surface temperature changes are happening faster than expected and more than half … said loss of Antarctic sea ice is happening faster than expected.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Every scientist surveyed expressed extreme or very high levels of concern about the impact climate change is having on the world's oceans.</para></quote>
<para>The fourth point is:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Marine heatwaves are becoming more severe and frequent, with devastating consequences for iconic coral reefs—</para></quote>
<para>like the Great Barrier Reef—</para>
<quote><para class="block">kelp forests—</para></quote>
<para>the loss of 95 per cent of Tasmania's giant kelp forests in the last decade is a classic example, with warming oceans and invasive pests—</para>
<quote><para class="block">and other marine ecosystems.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The incidence of marine heatwaves has doubled since the 1980s.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Marine heatwaves have already caused mass deaths of key species along 45 percent of Australia's coastline. Australia's giant kelp forests have declined—</para></quote>
<para>as I just mentioned, including other forests, such as golden kelp, seagrasses and crayweed—a whole range of critical habitat for our productive fisheries. The report goes on:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Parts of the ocean could reach a near permanent heatwave state by the end of this century, unless urgent action is taken to reduce fossil fuel emissions.</para></quote>
<para>Point 5 of the report is:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Coastal communities across Australia and the Pacific are all threatened by warming oceans and ocean acidification, from robbing us of our big ocean playground, to decimating entire communities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Global sea levels have risen 20cm since the start of the 20th century, with the rate of rise accelerating.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australia's … sandy shorelines are projected to retreat by around 100m by the end of the century.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Low-lying Pacific atoll nations face threats to habitability and food security from sea level rise.</para></quote>
<list>The rate of sea level rise will continue to accelerate …</list>
<list>As the oceans absorb more carbon dioxide, they become more acidic. This makes it more difficult for organisms like corals, mussels and oysters to form shells or skeletons. Ocean acidification is already reducing—</list>
<para>—and this has been proven—</para>
<quote><para class="block">the size of Sydney rock oysters.</para></quote>
<para>Point six says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Urgent action is needed to protect our oceans and limit warming, starting with rapidly phasing out coal, oil and gas.</para></quote>
<para>I'll say that again: we need to start with rapidly phasing out coal, oil and gas. Why are we debating legislation today that enables more coal, oil and gas? In the light of this report and everything we can see with our eyes wide open, why is the Australian parliament passing legislation in 2023 to facilitate more oil and gas development?</para>
<para>The report says:</para>
<list>Rapidly phasing out fossil fuels is critical to limit further ocean warming and acidification.</list>
<list>To play our part in limiting warming as close to 1.5°C as possible, and avoiding catastrophic tipping points for our ocean, Australia must aim to reduce emissions by 75 percent below 2005 levels by 2030—</list>
<para>our legislative target, by the way, is 43 per cent—</para>
<quote><para class="block">and reach net zero by 2035.</para></quote>
<para>That's not 2050; it's 2035. It goes on:</para>
<list>Reform of Australia's flawed environmental laws—to fully account for the climate impacts of new projects—is urgently required …</list>
<para>That includes putting an end to new fossil fuel developments.</para>
<para>Our oceans may also harbour climate change solutions. There are things that we can work on, such as mangroves and coastal wetlands and expanding marine protected areas. More support is urgently needed for communities to adapt to ocean changes. I will give a very quick plug to the fantastic report of the environment committee recently on exactly how we can adapt to marine invasive species like the black long-spined sea urchin from New South Wales.</para>
<para>What it doesn't say in this report is that we need carbon capture and storage. It doesn't say we need carbon capture and storage in our plan to decarbonise our planet, to meet our climate targets and to take action and make sure that future generations of this country can experience what I've experienced in my lifetime and see what I have seen under the water and in the landscape. It is very sad that we are delivering to future generations a future of climate emergency that is only going to get worse. But, nevertheless, here we are.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I am nearly finished, Senator Hanson. You've sat very patiently through my speech. This legislation today undermines climate action. It has been deliberately put to this Australian Senate to facilitate more fossil fuel development. Apparently, these new projects need carbon capture and storage, a technology that hasn't been proven to have worked commercially anywhere around the planet, a technology that would only, at best, sequester scope 1 or 2 emissions and not scope 3 emissions. <inline font-style="italic">(Time </inline><inline font-style="italic">expired</inline><inline font-style="italic">)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There are a few things that I want to refer to here with regard to the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023. To listen to the coalition opposition, they voted against the safeguard mechanisms because of the impact it would have on businesses and the cost to them and the jobs that would be lost. That was the reason why I didn't vote for it as well. But the coalition are going to support this bill. The opposition are going to support this bill about carbon capturing and what it means. I have to ask the question: why? If they were so opposed to the safeguard mechanism, why are they supporting this bill? The bill will get through with the opposition's support. So it is only the crossbench that is actually here asking questions of this bill. The two major political parties are supporting it.</para>
<para>Going back to the safeguard mechanism bill, Senator McAllister said then:</para>
<quote><para class="block">They are sensible reforms, and they are designed to ensure that Australia's largest emitters remain competitive in a global economy that is decarbonising.</para></quote>
<para>Climate change has been one of the biggest debates we're had for the last 12 years, with changes made to our country through legislation affecting our economy and impacting the Australian people by driving up the cost of living. And I think it's been a vote catcher for some parties too. They use it to put fear into the hearts of people, as we've heard today—for example, Senator Pocock mentioned the Great Barrier Reef is in disaster. The fact is, as I've stated here, UNESCO has given it a clean bill of health; it's not on the endangered list at all. It's actually pristine at the moment, and that's been advocated as well. I actually live in Queensland and I've been on the Great Barrier Reef a number of times; I've dived on the reef. There are no problems there. We have bleaching, as we've always had for centuries. We've always had bleaching. The bleached reef actually recovers very quickly. It's a natural thing that happens with coral.</para>
<para>Where I want to go from here is to say that we have been scammed. This is a scam. The United Nations and other countries around the world have scammed us with everything that's happening here. Climate change BS! A lot of people think it's a load of BS. Our climate is changing, but to actually think that it's changing because of human emissions when 97 per cent of carbon emissions comes from natural resources—and it comes from the oceans actually. Seventy-five to 80 per cent of the earth is covered by oceans. Carbon dioxide is released or taken into the oceans based on the temperature. That's how it works. We have it in our soil. We'll have it in growth. Carbon dioxide is 0.004 of the earth's gases, and it's a gas that we have to have for growth. Actually, at the moment, we are high in carbon dioxide, and guess what? We've had the highest production of agriculture that we've seen in a long time. So how is it hurting our world, if that is the case?</para>
<para>The thing is that climate change is a scam. We have used it, and a lot of people are in fear. Senator Whish-Wilson talks about how the islands are going under. Actually, there has been the growth of land masses across the world as well. So they're not actually going under. And there's another thing also: for how many years have we heard that the oceans are rising and we're going to be flooded and we won't have a coastline? How many times have we heard that? A number of times, yet people keep buying up their land. Members of parliament and former Prime Ministers all live on the coastline. No-one is selling up. They still are maintaining higher costs for those properties.</para>
<para>And we have talk about the heating. As Senator Pocock said, it's been the hottest year that we have had on record. Do you know they stopped taking records in 1910? You can't get records beyond that. If you go back to the late 1800s, we had hotter records than we have now, yet we didn't have all the cars, we didn't have the human emissions and we didn't have the number of people, but we had hotter temperatures then. What about the time when Australia was underwater inland? That wasn't due to humans here; that was all climate change due to other effects and changes and causes. Has anyone really discussed the sun and its impact on us? No. We all go back to human emissions, which is only three per cent. And of that three per cent—just tell the Australian people—Australia has one per cent of the three per cent. Three per cent is the whole, and we have only one per cent of that three per cent. We are actually destroying our economy and the way of life of a lot of Australians, and you're continuing to head down this path.</para>
<para>What I want to tell people is that Tony Abbott signed up to the Paris Agreement in 2016, and guess what? Only 37 countries signed up to it. Russia, China and India didn't. Look at the populations of those countries—over a billion people each in China and India, and hundreds of millions of people in Russia. We signed up to it, and they are the biggest emitters of carbon dioxide—China over 30 per cent to our one per cent.</para>
<para>How hypocritical of this government to actually then want to crucify our businesses, our companies. We are forcing them to shut down. We're increasing prices to the consumer for their goods, yet we keep exporting. How hypocritical. If you think coal and gas is so bad, why do we actually keep exporting it, which I agree with, to China to make steel—their emissions are over 30 per cent—and then buy back their product? Where is this government's sense of what's fair and just? You're a bunch of hypocrites and you're destroying the economy for it.</para>
<para>This is another stupidity of the London protocol, which the minister mentioned yesterday. It says here that a part of this London protocol that we're part of is to research marine cloud brightening or seeding. This is injecting sea salt into cloud updrafts to reflect sunlight back into space. I mean honestly. Truly? And you've signed up to that as well? I can't believe it. You're letting these scientists out there run around with fairies in their heads and all this rubbish and we've got to pay for it. You expect the Australian taxpayer to pay for this technology.</para>
<para>It's the same as when you headed down the path of this hydrogen. You've put $2 billion in the budget for hydrogen. The report I have here says, 'Modelling has not been undertaken to calculate the number of new wind turbines needed to deliver the $2 billion Hydrogen Headstart program.' No modelling has been done on that either. You're just scamming your way through this and you expect the Australian people to pick up the bill for all this. You're buying votes; that's all it is. You're buying votes in this place from the Australian people through you're fearmongering.</para>
<para>And I'll tell you another thing, the government actually—this is what the public should know. The government creates carbon credits and sells them on the market. It's become a trading market. A lot of people are making money out of it. Do you know what they did in Savannah, in Queensland? They reduced last season's grassfires. They burn off their grasses and then, by burning off their grasses, they get 18,000 carbon tax credits. They've done this every year since 2015. Do you know they've accumulated over 57,955 carbon credits worth $32 at the moment? And that's where we're giving it to them. You're actually creating carbon credits and the government allocate carbon credits to the tune of half a billion dollars. You're out there making money out of this trading and you're allowing businesses to go ahead and do it at a cost to the taxpayer. It's a big scam with this climate change BS that you're pushing on the Australian people.</para>
<para>I will keep opposing it. I will oppose this bill. I'm not opposing gas mining or fossil fuels, because we need them. They prop up our economy. You've got nothing else to fall back on. If you think you're going to export our wind and solar, you're playing silly buggers with the public here as well. You've got nothing to export, and we can't even supply our own needs. Go and ask South Australia how they feel about their wind— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, I'm interested to learn how a company will go about obtaining a permit. Will it be on application to the department or to another authority so that a technical assessment can be made before advice is provided to the minister?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks very much, Senator Pocock. As I've indicated, a prerequisite for the receipt of any application for a permit would be the establishment of a bilateral agreement, and we've canvassed that in earlier discussions. The process would then require the proponent to submit an application to the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, and the department would seek expert advice on any specific aspect of any application that the delegate or the minister would require to ensure that a robust decision would be made.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Who will be making the technical assessments on the suitability of any risk management plans or the suitability or technical merit of any proposed geoengineering activity? Is that determined by the department?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll offer a two-part answer. The first is that DCCEEW would be responsible for assessing the permit application. Of course, the department has a long history of engaging in environmental impact assessment processes and has specific capabilities in relation to the EIA requirements of the London protocol. But, in addition to that, to the extent that the project engages any other aspect of Australian government regulation, the proponent would also need to meet all of those requirements. You can envisage quite a wide range of both state and Commonwealth regulatory arrangements that might be engaged, depending on the nature of the project. So, as part of the application, the applicant would be required to describe all of the consultations that have taken place with all of the relevant bodies—advisory bodies and government authorities, as well as stakeholder organisations or interest groups.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm interested: is that expertise currently available within DCCEEW, or will the government seek to recruit new expertise into the department to undertake that? As part of the assessment process, will the department seek to obtain an external assessment of any application?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think the department—sorry, I shouldn't say 'I think'. The department would obtain advice as necessary. If the department judged that external expertise was required in addition to the expertise in house or the expertise held in, for example, CSIRO or Geoscience Australia, they would of course obtain that additional expertise.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I appreciate that, but my question was actually about whether or not the department, DCCEEW, currently has that capability, that expertise and, as part of the process, whether there would be the additional need for an independent evaluation of any proposal. Will it just be a one-stop shop—'Come to DCCEEW and you can get your answer'?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The department would consider all of the advice that was before it, analogous to the way that it exercises its responsibilities and some of the legislation that it presently administers.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't understand why you can't answer our questions. The first question was: does DCCEEW currently have the capability to do this?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The department has a long history of considering environmental impact assessments. In the context of its present legislative and regulatory responsibilities, it would exercise any requirements under this legislation in a matter analogous to the approach it takes in relation to the other legislation that it administers. When a departmental delegate is required to take a decision, they consider the obligations that are laid out in the legislation and obtain all necessary information to be able to exercise those functions. Necessarily, that looks a little different depending on the nature of the application before the decision-maker. But, yes, part of the department's core expertise is the capacity to consider environmental impact assessments, and that's the requirement that would be in place should this legislation pass.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister. Will there be public consultation on a permanent application as part of the application process?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm advised that the minister is required to publish details of any application that is made through this process.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister; that's good to know. I'm interested in if that includes a formal obligation to undertake public consultation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The public consultation is required to be undertaken by the proponent as part of preparing their application. The department would set requirements that described the nature of the necessary consultation. That's yet to be established and is subject to the passage of this legislation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister. Just on the issue of consultation: I'm interested in whether we've been able to get some advice from the department on who the minister met with in consultation for this bill, given how important consultation is and how much we've heard from the Albanese government about consultation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think you're aware that this bill has been the subject of extensive consultation. The development of this has been ongoing for a very long period of time. In January this year, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water, at Minister Plibersek's request, conducted an inquiry into the 2009 and 2013 amendments. The broad aims of the inquiry were to seek information on the environmental benefits and impacts of the transboundary movement of carbon dioxide streams for the purpose of sub-seabed sequestration; the environmental benefits and impacts of marine geoengineering activity such as ocean fertilisation for scientific research; the international market for carbon dioxide streams; and the interaction of the proposed amendments with greenhouse gas inventories and regulatory reporting systems. A public hearing was held as part of that process on 26 May at Parliament House and was attended by industry, government agencies and an expert in environmental law, and the committee released its report on 13 June 2023. As I think you will know, the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee also conducted an inquiry. It released a report on 22 July 2023 recommending that the bill be passed, with a dissenting report from the Greens political party.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister, for that. In the absence of detail, I guess we just have to make assumptions that there wasn't much genuine consultation by the minister on this. You've outlined committee processes. It will come as a shock to senators in this place that a Senate legislation committee recommends the passing of a bill!</para>
<para>To go back to this very valid concern about consultation not just on this bill: should this pass, when we have proponents suggesting or putting forward projects, you have told the Senate that the proponent would be required to do public consultation. We've recently seen some huge issues around that, one example being Santos and Tiwi islanders. I'm interested how the department will know that it is receiving all relevant information and views from the consultation.</para>
<para>How will the department know that it is receiving all relevant submissions and views on the public consultation? Why would the department not conduct their own consultation, given that this is a new area for Australia? This has not been done before.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Pocock, I've sought to indicate in earlier answers that the process would be analogous to the way that consultation on applications occurs under other environmental legislation—specifically, that the proponent is required to demonstrate that they meet the consultation requirements associated with submitting an application for a permit. Those requirements would be set out by the department as a standardised requirement, and they would form part of a broader set of informational obligations that proponents would be required to meet before submitting an application. You did ask a multipart question. You've been distressed at different times when I haven't answered all of your multipart questions in each answer. If I've missed something, please feel free to raise it again.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Apologies, Minister, for the multipart question. The second part of the question was: given that we've seen some very serious concerns about proponent led engagement and given that this is a new area for the government, why isn't the department going to do its own community consultation?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The department will establish the requirements for consultation for the proponent and, as part of evaluating their application, will assess whether or not they have met those requirements to the satisfaction of the decision-maker.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I might follow with some questions of my own in relation to the legislation. Obviously, as I mentioned earlier, the government is asking the Senate to pass this legislation to take the first step towards developing carbon capture and storage in the ocean, which, in turn, is designed to facilitate new fossil fuel projects—or, potentially, depleted fields that are next to existing operations—to attempt to offset their emissions. I have three areas of questions. The first is in relation to what liability the government and taxpayers will hold for any CCS project undertaken offshore, whether it's in domestic or foreign waters. Maybe we'll start with domestic waters, considering that you have four companies interested in importing other countries' carbon pollution. What liability will the Australian taxpayer have for these projects?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As a general proposition, proponents are responsible for their actions. Under current regulatory arrangements for domestic projects, a proponent who is planning to dispose of CO2 in Australia requires multiple approvals, including under the sea dumping act, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act. To anticipate your next question, in relation to exports, as I've indicated in previous answers, any country that receives CO2 under arrangements for transboundary movements of CO2 will need to have an equivalent regulatory control in place that meets the requirements of the London protocol.</para>
<para>And any releases of carbon dioxide through the carbon transport, injection and storage phases must be accounted for under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change international reporting framework and included in the national emissions inventories of the country in which they occur.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There have been frequent references over many years now in relation to CCS projects in general, and particularly in relation to the Barossa project by Japanese investors in that offshore oil and gas development. They want federal government assistance. They want subsidies to help them develop the technology and help them work within the new regulations. Minister, what are the government's plans for providing subsidies or assistance to help facilitate carbon capture and storage projects?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Whish-Wilson, I think you know, because it's been the subject of some discussion in estimates and at times in here, that the government has recently refocused the arrangements that were in place under the previous government to provide subsidies for commercial CCS. Our policy settings focus on providing support only to areas of technology innovation with a particular focus—I think for obvious reason—on technologies that might support the application of CCS in hard-to-abate areas.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before we go to Senator Hanson, could I ask for some clarification there? Could the minister be more specific as to what she means by 'technology'? Let me put it in a more simple way: will you rule out government subsidies for new carbon capture and storage projects for Australian companies operating in Australian waters who are exporting their carbon dioxide into international waters? Obviously, Barossa's the only one on the table that I'm aware of at the moment that's seeking to do that. Will the government rule out subsides to that project and to others?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Whish-Wilson, as with many of the questions you've put to me over the last couple of days, the government doesn't have a project proposal before us in relation to Barossa. We're aware, of course—as you are—of public discussion and public commentary by the proponents for that project. I have indicated to you where our focus is in terms of CCS funding support. We do not allocate funding to commercial applications of CCS. The previous government did, and the budget changes we made sought to refocus CCS funding towards areas that require technical innovation. I will confess to you that I may need to consult a little to get the specific parameters of the new program design, but I can broadly say it seeks to move away from commercial activities and towards activities that would ordinarily be considered part of the innovation cycle rather than the commercial part of the technology cycle.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll be quick because I know Senator Hanson has some more questions, and I certainly have more in relation to other areas. As I mentioned yesterday, it was reported—and, Senator, you confirmed this and you said these talks were important—that we've had high-level government talks between the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Don Farrell, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, and the Minister for Resources, Madeleine King, with Mr Nishimura, Japan's Minister for Economy, Trade and Industry, and others very recently, and they have consistently asked for government assistance for carbon capture and storage in relation to Barossa.</para>
<para>I just ask you again, yes or no: will you rule out future government subsidies or assistance for this project under this legislation?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator. The government has made no commitments to other governments or to proponents about financial support for carbon capture and storage associated with the Barossa project. I also indicated that I would seek a more precise formulation of the new Carbon Capture Technologies Program. I concede that my earlier answer possibly, aside from anything else, was grammatically incorrect, so can I provide this additional piece of information: the Australian government is developing a new Carbon Capture Technologies Program with a focus on prioritising technology development for hard-to-abate industrial sectors, accelerating carbon dioxide removal and negative-emissions technologies, and supporting research opportunities. The program will be an open, competitive grants program aimed at accelerating the integration of novel CO2 capture technologies and CO2 utilisation technologies into Australia's growing CCUS capability. Importantly for you, Senator Whish-Wilson, this new approach shifts government funding away from commercial-scale CCUS activities and focuses on technologies that are key to achieving net zero by 2050. Demonstrating the technical capability and reducing the cost of these novel technologies now will enable their scale-up over time to meet our long-term climate objectives.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, will this bill allow companies operating in our waters to buy carbon emissions from other countries and pump them into our seabeds?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hanson, I can't comment on whether commercial arrangements for Australian companies or companies operating in our waters would involve buying carbon dioxide. However, I can indicate that the purpose of this bill is to establish the regulatory arrangements that would be necessary if a company wanted to establish a project to do this, and it sets out a series of things that would need to occur, including a country-to-country agreement between Australia and the other country that was involved in such a project, and then a series of steps that the proponent would need to take to demonstrate that it meets the stringent environmental and other regulatory requirements that are set up in the London protocol. The purpose of the London protocol is to make sure that we have a consistent and robust approach to protecting our marine environment in a range of circumstances but, in this instance, in circumstances where there is a transborder movement of carbon dioxide.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We have two minutes before the hard marker.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister. I just want to follow up. Yesterday, you gave an answer to this, and I just wanted to make sure it was clear for the Senate. I just want you to confirm whether or not Minister Bowen or Minister Plibersek had made any undertaking or agreement with any gas companies, or intermediaries acting on their behalf, about the passage of this legislation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Pocock. Of course the government has spoken with a range of entities—community groups, environment groups, proponents and diplomatic engagements—about our approach to climate legislation generally, carbon capture and storage specifically, and our approach to the London protocol. I think that's what you'd expect from a government that was engaged with stakeholders in the ordinary way when legislation is progressing.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You're free to ask a question, but in 20 seconds, Senator Pocock.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, was there an agreement with gas companies before the safeguard legislation passed, 'Don't worry, this legislation's coming and we'll make sure that sea-dumping passes the parliament?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We'll have to wait for that response, Senator Pocock. It will remain a mystery until we reconvene.</para>
<para>Progress reported.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY SENATORS</title>
        <page.no>30</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY SENATORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice</title>
          <page.no>30</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I take this opportunity in the Senate to reach out to the millions of Australians who supported the 'yes' vote for the referendum for a voice to the parliament to be enshrined in the Constitution. I take this opportunity to say thank you to each and every one of you who were involved with the campaign—to the volunteers and Yes23 coordinators across the country—for an incredibly comprehensive and passionate campaign. From knocking on thousands of doors to making phone calls and speaking to people on the streets, your campaigning sparked conversations and reached Australians in the cities, regions, towns and remote bush communities, and even to Australian communities overseas.</para>
<para>For many volunteers, it was their first campaign and one done with incredible enthusiasm, energy and goodwill. I'm thankful for people like Professor Megan Davis, a constitutional lawyer who has been involved in the journey for many years and who no doubt will continue to be. Professor Davis helped design the regional dialogues with communities right across Australia which led to the gathering at the Uluru Statement from the Heart in 2017 on Anangu country. Thank you to Dean Parkin, who led the campaign for Yes23, for your unwavering commitment in leading one of the biggest grassroots campaigns this country has ever seen, with around 60,000 volunteers. It was an awesome job, Dean. Pat Anderson is an Alyawarre woman who has made an immense contribution to Indigenous health. Thank you, Aunty Pat, for seeing through this process for so many years, including your time as co-chair of the Referendum Council. It released its final report in 2017 to the then coalition government.</para>
<para>And, of course, the former Indigenous Australian's minister Ken Wyatt has remained dedicated to the cause and had the courage to take a detailed report of voice-modelling to the former coalition government, not only once but twice. Noel Pearson has for many decades advocated for structural reforms to empower Indigenous people, including through a voice to parliament. And Thomas Mayo trekked through all corners of Australia for years to tell the story of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. He carried its message, but not just in the statement itself. Thank you, Thomas, for your incredible advocacy and your continued work, that will go on. Your books and your storytelling, especially to our children across the country—all young children—are beautiful reminders of a message that still resonates very strongly in the hearts of so many millions of Australians.</para>
<para>Thank you to the coalition members who showed their support, including former Nationals member Andrew Gee, and everyone involved in Liberals for Yes, including Senator Andrew Bragg, as well as Julian Leeser and Bridget Archer. Your courage, advocacy and support, and the dignity in which you carried through your advocacy and your firm belief throughout the campaign, were incredibly admirable. You certainly called out the commentary, and you certainly reminded all Australians that we are a democracy—and that in order to have our debates we must do so in a manner that is respectful. I appreciate the advocacy by the coalition members of Liberals for Yes—your advocacy in that space with us.</para>
<para>I would like to point out and mention to the Senate the First Nations Referendum Engagement Group members, who were so significant in their support but also in reaching out and giving guidance to our government, including to Minister Linda Burney, Senator Patrick Dodson, Mark Dreyfus as Attorney-General and me. I thank Councillor Ross Andrews, Nathan Appo, Professor Muriel Bamblett AO, Jennifer Beale, Professor Jack Beetson, Dameyon Bonson, Wendy Brabham, Paul Briggs OAM, Gavin Brown, Selwyn Button, Nicholas Cameron, Shirleen Campbell, Councillor Danny Chapman, Fiona Cornforth, Dr Josie Douglas, Katrina Fanning, Tyronne Garstone, Mick Gooda, Damian Griffis, Tanya Hosch, Paul House, Gibson Farmer Illortaminni, Deborah Katona, Councillor Esma Livermore, Jamie Lowe, Dr Hannah McGlade, Wayne Miller, Phillemon Mosby, Kado Muir, Karen Mundine, Teela Reid, Councillor Matthew Ryan, Shane Sturgiss, Ian Trust AO, Les Turner, Dr Tracy Westerman AM, Richard Weston, Sammy Wilson, Scott Wilson, Professor Asmi Wood and, of course, the late Mr T Amagula, who was the deputy chair of Anindilyakwa Land Council and who we buried last week.</para>
<para>Thank you to all the First Nations Referendum Working Group members: Dale Agius, Pat Anderson AO, Geraldine Atkinson, Professor Tom Calma AO, Professor Megan Davis, Rodney Dillon, Sean Gordon—for your outstanding advocacy, Dr Jackie Huggins AM, Professor Dr Marcia Langton AO—for your incredible wisdom throughout this and for giving us support, even when you were under incredibly sustained attack, Thomas Mayor, Tony McAvoy SC, June Oscar AO, Dean Parkin, Noel Pearson, Sally Scales, Napau Pedro Stephen AM, Marcus Stewart, Pat Turner AM, the Hon. Ken Wyatt AM, Professor Peter Yu AM and, of course, the late Mr Yunupingu, who was the chairman of the Yothu Yindi Foundation and who was represented at times by Denise Bowden.</para>
<para>We saw the referendum results and we know that 9.4 million Australians voted no to the Voice constitutional reform and that 6.2 million Australians voted yes. I reach out to each and every 'yes' voter and say thank you. Thank you so much for the letters, phone calls and texts I've received from so many hundreds, if not millions, of Australians who've reached out to show your support and your love. I also thank those who assisted the 'yes' campaign through these past few weeks.</para>
<para>We, of course, respect and accept the decision of the Australian people, and it's wonderful that we do live in a democracy where we can have a say and participate fully in our system of government. We know how difficult constitutional change is in Australia—now only eight out of 45 referendums have been successful, and none have ever succeeded without bipartisan support. We knew that it was never going to be easy once the Nationals moved away in November-December last year, which was certainly a deep disappointment. Later, to have the Leader of the Opposition put forward his firm position not to support the First Nations people who met at Uluru in their aim to have a Voice recognised in the Constitution was a double blow. This was clearly a deep disappointment for so many.</para>
<para>I am very pleased to note and to share with the Senate that 80 to 90 per cent of our First Nations people supported the vote in all of those communities right across Australia, including over 90 per cent in Wadeye—figures I've never seen before—and from Palm Island to Far North Queensland to Western Australia and down throughout parts of South Australia and into the southern parts of the country. I give a huge thankyou to all of those First Nations people who stood with us all the way. We will remain firm, strong and focused, and we'll continue on.</para>
<para>This has been an interesting time on many levels for me personally, but I've also been deeply inspired by so many—by the leadership with such dignity and the way in which you carried yourselves throughout the horrific onslaught that we received, through social media at various times and through hate and really resentful prejudice. I certainly hope that we can move forward in a way that strengthens where we can go as First Nations people in this country. I thank especially the Prime Minister for having the courage to follow through on taking our country through the referendum at the request of those First Nations people who asked us on such a long journey, over many, many years. I thank Linda Burney and Senator Pat Dodson. We fight on. I also give a special mention to Senator Cox and the Greens and the Independents who stood very firmly and strongly in this cause. We fight on. We will fight on.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BROCKMAN</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to talk about misinformation, and I particularly rise to talk about Labor's draft Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023 in light of the recent Voice referendum. I think we can have a look at a real-life experiment in what is branded as misinformation and would potentially be labelled as misinformation under this misguided, poorly drafted, poorly thought through Labor misinformation bill. In fact, on the night of the referendum result, we had Labor ministers talking about the impact of misinformation on the vote. I think the day after the referendum we had the Greens leader talking about how misinformation legislation was now urgent and how we had to pass misinformation laws because of what had happened in the referendum. The Australian people can now judge Labor's misinformation bill against what occurred in the referendum.</para>
<para>Let's use as our source a journalistic outfit that I don't think anyone would say leans to the right of politics. Let's look at the <inline font-style="italic">Guardian</inline>. They happened to publish an article called 'Voice referendum: factchecking the seven biggest pieces of misinformation pushed by the no side'. Here we have from the <inline font-style="italic">Guardian</inline> a list of what they consider to be the seven biggest pieces of misinformation out there. I won't go through them all, for the sake of time, but I'll go through the top four. To be perfectly honest, I think the other three are pretty marginal—a long bow to draw—and certainly were never raised with me once throughout the referendum campaign. But let's have a look at the others that the <inline font-style="italic">Guardian</inline> call misinformation, which, therefore, are at risk of falling foul of Labor's misinformation bill. Let's see if they would fall foul of that bill and if they should rightly be characterised as misinformation.</para>
<para>The claim that the <inline font-style="italic">Guardian</inline> first says is misinformation is that the proposal was legally risky. Even proponents and people who said they were going to vote yes, with extensive legal backgrounds, said that there was legal risk involved. Malcolm McCusker KC, a very well known juris from Western Australia, made it very clear that, in his considered view, there were legal risks in the proposal in front of the Australian people. But who said it wasn't legally risky? Let's consider this for a moment: the Solicitor-General. Under Labor's misinformation bill, a source that comes from the government cannot be misinformation, but a source that comes from anywhere else in the community, like from a private citizen, can. Those social media platforms, when assessing whether the Voice was legally risky—or whether the proposition that the Voice was legally risky is a piece of misinformation—would say: 'There's a government solicitor saying that it's not. Governments can't say misinformation; therefore it must be misinformation.'</para>
<para>They are going to tend to trust, under the government's own legislation, the government source, so suddenly the claim that the voice was legally risky has the potential to become misinformation, which is just a nonsense. There were clear legal risks involved. It was clearly an important point that needed to be highlighted in the debate. It was clear from jurists—even jurists who supported the 'yes' case—that there were legal risks involved. So how could it possibly be that that would be misinformation?</para>
<para>The second piece of supposed misinformation that the <inline font-style="italic">Guardian</inline> puts forward is that the Voice was divisive. Well, that is a political argument. It's not a piece of misinformation. You can say it's not a divisive proposal—fine. You can argue the point, as Senator Scarr said. It's an opinion. But to label it as misinformation, particularly if a government source then put out something to say that it wasn't divisive—suddenly then the social media platforms would have to think very hard about taking down any comment from anyone such as Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price as saying that the voice is divisive would potentially fall foul, would potentially be misinformation as the <inline font-style="italic">Guardian </inline>labels it.</para>
<para>The third piece of supposed misinformation that the <inline font-style="italic">Guardian</inline> puts out is that the Voice would lead to treaty. Well, the slogan was 'voice, treaty, truth'. You can argue if you want to it wasn't a foregone conclusion, but the idea that this wasn't part of the thinking, part of overall process that was being put forward, again, is a political debating point. It's not a statement of whether something is misinformation or whether it isn't. Yet, again, to go back to Labor's misinformation bill, something from a government source is protected. It's assumed to be truth. The Prime Minister said this wasn't leading to treaty, so, therefore, the opposite case suddenly becomes misinformation. Suddenly you can't make the argument. It's going to be taken down on social media.</para>
<para>The last one—point No. 4—is almost the most humorous. The <inline font-style="italic">Guardian</inline> article puts forward as misinformation that the Voice had no detail. Well, to me that was an absolute statement of fact. The government said that they weren't going to put forward the detail, because that was up to the parliament to decide. They said that there was no detail there. To say that that is a piece of misinformation is, I think, the height of hypocrisy.</para>
<para>We can see with these examples very clearly how labelling something as misinformation, particularly when protections are put in this draft bill that make government sources of information protected, and then relying on social media companies to judge the question of misinformation versus truth against an arbitrary standard but one where the government speaks the truth—what is that social media platform inevitably going to default to? It's going to default to the safe position, which is that the government said it and the government doesn't speak misinformation; therefore, everybody else's opinion is misinformation. That, if you think about it for just a few seconds, is an extremely dangerous world and an extremely dangerous proposition to put forward in a democratic society.</para>
<para>The fact is we did have a referendum. The Australian people did get to speak. They spoke with a clear voice and a very loud voice that this proposal wasn't to be supported. But, in doing so, it is also very clear that the government's misinformation bill, if it had been in place prior to the referendum going forward, would have shut down numerous voices, would have shut down numerous key, reasonable arguments for why this Voice was opposed and should have been opposed by the Australian people.</para>
<para>The fact is many Australians who I spoke to in the course of the last four or five months did consider this proposal to be legally risky. No matter the opinion of the solicitor-general, they did believe that the Voice was divisive. No matter the statements from government ministers, they did believe that there was a link between, as the slogan goes, voice, treaty, truth, and it was quite reasonable for those issues to be discussed in a political context. Any legislation that threatens that discussion is a dagger pointed at the heart of democracy and that is why we should all be staunchly opposed to Labor's misinformation bill. In fact, it should never see the light of day in this place.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Services Australia</title>
          <page.no>33</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RICE</name>
    <name.id>155410</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Centrelink's performance has become worse under Labor. Over the last fortnight at Senate estimates I have challenged the government about this, and I have been angered and disappointed at what I uncovered. These numbers are not just statistics. Every number reflects the lives of Australians who rely on our government to provide them with support they need. Many of these people have illnesses, injuries or disabilities that prevent them from working and they depend on income support payments to survive.</para>
<para>The social security system is meant to be their lifeline, their safety net. Instead of receiving timely and appropriate assistance, we continue to hear report after report of people being failed by Australia's social security system. The evidence is clear, and the stories are heart-wrenching. Have a listen to some recent experiences of people who have engaged with Centrelink. Last week Ariel shared on social media: 'I submitted a JobSeeker claim to Centrelink; two months later, still nothing. I was told I would find out by the end of September but no—radio silence. I tried to call, apparently all the lines are busy at 11 am and 7 pm. What is going on?' Jess shared: 'Niece was told she was eligible for Youth Allowance at the start of the year. Ten months later, 10 months into a course, 10 months into living away from home, she's been told that was wrong and she owes Centrelink $12,000. How can they do that? She is 18, living on her own in a state that is different to where her parents live and she now owes $12,000. Are Centrelink aware of what that does to the stress levels of an 18-year-old?' From Justin: 'After being cut off twice, I spent an hour and a half waiting on the phone just to be cut off again, all because they keep asking me to update parental income for my son, despite the fact it's already done. He applied 10 months ago—still waiting. The system is broken.' From Jackie at the end of October: 'Currently too sick to work thanks to long COVID. Been waiting for my JobSeeker claim to be properly processed since the end of August. I say properly because it's been wrongly rejected once already and I'm now waiting for it to be re-assessed.' From Scoot: 'I tried to get on to Austudy this semester. After months of no response to my claim, I get a request for more information. I could never get to Services Australia despite trying multiple times every day and my claim was rejected because I never contacted them.'</para>
<para>At estimates I challenged the government on the dismal and appalling state of Centrelink's call wait times. When we compare the last financial year with the previous one, the numbers paint a bleak picture. Calls answered dropped from 40 per cent to only 31 per cent, less than one in three, while the average wait time has increased from 14 minutes to a frustrating 22 minutes, way over their 15-minute target. Perhaps even more distressing is that calls that end with a congestion message—that is, we're too busy to take your call, so goodbye—have risen to a staggering 21 per cent of all calls. And the situation was worse in July and August this year, when only 23 per cent of calls were answered with an average wait of time of 32 minutes, and 35 per cent of calls ended with congestion messages.</para>
<para>Services Australia's explanation for this decline was that July and August are typically busy times and they have a surge of calls during these months. If this surge is predictable year after year, then why are we witnessing such abysmal numbers? Surely a proactive approach of employing more staff during this time should be able to avoid such appalling service quality.</para>
<para>Services Australia also claim that they're no longer blocking Centrelink customer calls; however, the reality is far from reassuring. Instead of blocking calls, they have implemented an interactive voice response service and congestion messaging. I asked a crucial question: what happens if an income support recipient needs, and is willing to wait, to speak to a human? The answer I received was deeply troubling. If they ring when the lines are particularly busy then, unless they know the magic words to speak to be put through to a person, a congestion message is played and the call is terminated. In the customer dares to call back the same day using the same phone and the system is still congested, the system autoblocks their number. They can't ring back until the congested time is over. How can we not see this as Centrelink effectively blocking customer calls? It's a grave injustice to people who are struggling and desperately in need of assistance. Not even being able to get onto Centrelink in a timely way adds to the frustration and hardship that so many already face.</para>
<para>Another of Services Australia's claims at estimates was that the drop in the number of calls answered was because they had redeployed people to the processing of claims. In fact, over the same period claim wait times blew out too. For example, people waiting for a claim for the disability support pension had to wait an extra six days on average, to 46 days in financial year 2022-23 and an astounding 80 days in July and August this year. JobSeeker for young people skyrocketed from 14 days in 2022-23 to 36 days in July and August. Throughout the entire year, Services Australia consistently failed to meet its targets. There is a severe lack of staffing, and the most vulnerable in our society are paying the price.</para>
<para>We welcomed the news this week that Centrelink call centres will get an additional 3,000 staff. But the reality is that these staff will just be replacing the thousands made redundant by both the previous government and this Labor government when they decided that the increased number of staff in place to cope with claims following the floods and fires were no longer needed. The staffing boost also won't fix the cultural issues festering in Services Australia. In spillover estimates yesterday we heard that around 2,000, or 10 per cent, of the Services Australia workforce leave every year, and that nearly 20 per cent say that they would like to leave in the next year. Even with this week's funding boost, our social security system is in complete decay under Labor.</para>
<para>In employment estimates, when I questioned the government about mutual obligations, the department made a startling admission. They revealed that over 70 per cent of people whose mutual obligations are managed through a private employment service provider have had their payments suspended. These people then need to put their lives on hold while they jump through bureaucratic hoops in an attempt to get their payments reinstated. It's shocking that private providers are given the power to suspend payments, and it raises serious concerns about the motivations and practices of these private providers, who are supposed to assist people in finding employment. How can you find employment on no income and with no food in your belly? Mutual obligations as they are currently structured are punitive and, more often than not, ineffective. Mutual obligations are a burden that exacerbates the hardships faced by individuals. While some individuals may benefit from specific requirements and support, many are unfairly burdened by a system that fails to consider their unique challenges and needs. When payments are suspended, vulnerable people are left without the support they desperately require.</para>
<para>It doesn't have to be this way. The people who depend on income support payments are often facing immense challenges. They rely on these payments to survive, and the government's duty is to ensure that they receive accurate and timely assistance. Our social security system should be a robust safety net providing financial aid to those who are unable to work, who find themselves suddenly without an income. It should be a system that offers support when it's needed most; however, what we see instead is a system that continues to disappoint. This is why I'm calling on the Labor government to take immediate action and raise the rate of all income support payments above the poverty line, to at least $88 a day. No Australian should be forced to live in poverty while struggling to make ends meet. And we must abolish mutual obligations and all punitive measures that have marred our social security system.</para>
<para>We cannot ignore the shadow of robodebt looming over us.</para>
<para>I urge the government to immediately suspend all social security debt recovery to ensure that the harm of robodebt is not repeated. The current state of our social security system is a reflection of the choices that are made by those in power. It's time for the Labor government to take a stand, make the necessary changes and ensure that our social security system fulfils its true purpose, to provide support to everyone who needs it and to ensure that no-one lives in poverty.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fitzroy Crossing: Floods</title>
          <page.no>35</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STERLE</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I've got a great story to tell, but before I do, a couple of days ago in here I referred to Senator Bridget McKenzie from the Victorian Nationals as the 'minister for rorts', and it's come to my attention that really upset her. She didn't say at the time, so, because of my respect for that chair and all who sit in it and for the Senate, I will withdraw that.</para>
<para>On a happy note, I had the privilege to bring back my skills, my craft, my trade as a furniture removalist-truck driver last week when I did one of my Fitzroy furniture runs to Fitzroy Crossing and through the valley. Last week I met with my dear mate Carl Cardaci, the founder of Centurion Transport, who helped me get it up there and back. A few days before I left Canberra and we loaded three trailers of kindly donated double, king- and queen-size mattresses, all brand new, or the oldest may have been 30 days old. Some of these mattresses come in at about 10 grand a mattress, but they were all donated for the victims of the Fitzroy floods. As we know, we lost 92 homes, and all those homes were homes for Aboriginal people. You can imagine the strain on our Aboriginal families in the Fitzroy Valley and their stress from not being able to get back to Fitzroy. Now there's housing going in, as they've just put some housing in there. We're furnishing those homes and working closely with Marra Worra Worra.</para>
<para>I want to thank Justin Cadaci and Spencer Dewar, from Centurion Transport. Thank you so much, guys, for your kindness and generosity of throwing in a prime mover, two dollies and three trailers, plus the fuel card. I've got to tell you it's no mean feat; 5,200 kilometres of fuel is very expensive. They didn't bat an eye lid because they're part of the Kimberley community. I want to give my very special thanks to my very dear friend Nick D'Adamo and his team at KEYS The Moving Solution. I'd like to say I loaded it all on my own, but at the tender age of nearly 64 I'd get in the way. But I'd puff and pant and have a beer when we'd finished. I also want to specially thanks a very special person, Don Bantock. He owns the Bedshed franchises at Osborne Park and Midland. With his skills and his reach within the bedding industry, he's brought along a lot of other people who have helped and donated as well. Don, you are one of life's diamonds, so thank you so much. For the joy that you bring to Aboriginal people in the Kimberley, I can't thank you enough. He's been with me to Kununurra and to Fitzroy. The other day I went to a community in the valley, and they're dying to meet you, mate, because 10 of your beds went to the 10 houses in there. I spoke to the senior TO, the chairperson, and I asked her, 'What were you sleeping on before Don donated this bed?' She said, 'A piece of foam.' You can't imagine how much joy and pleasure that brings to people in the Kimberley.</para>
<para>We haven't been alone because so many other people helped: David Quinlivan, from the OBH, the Ocean Beach Hotel, donated many of those beds. We also took 110 single beds to the valley. We had great support from Sleep-Ezy with hundreds of brand-new mattresses donated by them—fantastic, thank you. The Hire for Baby business in Perth is run by Paul and Karen Melling. It's a hire business that does cots and change tables and all that. They shut their shop and they contacted Ben from my office. They couldn't wait to donate cots and change tables. You can't imagine how far that goes through the valley and how greatly appreciated it is. We went to the Baya Gawiy Early Childhood Learning Unit, and they're dishing out the cots to the mothers in need. Carl and I really appreciated that. <inline font-style="italic">Ocean </inline><inline font-style="italic">Protector</inline>, a federal government ship that runs down to the Antarctic, are changing their beds. They're going to donate 60 beds to our mattresses program to get to the Kimberley and give people there an opportunity to have a good night's sleep. David Jones—thank you, David Jones—donated 30 high-quality bed bases and bedheads. You can imagine how good that was because in the last three years, I think, we have put 800 beds through the Kimberley and we'll continue to keep this going. Carl's in, Justin's in, Nick's in, Don's in—I can't ask for more than that. It gives me an excuse twice a year to get my boots on and head north and do what I love doing better than what I normally do.</para>
<para>Also, in saying that, I want to give a special thanks to a very dear friend of mine, Christy Cain, and his lovely wife, Anna. Anna rang me some four or five months ago. They had a beautiful marble kitchen with all the good stuff, but it was two or three years old, and Anna decided she wanted a different kitchen. She rang me and said, 'I've got this kitchen; do you want it?' My first reaction was, 'Hell, yeah.' So we went out and picked it up. It was marble. I'll tell you what: it was good-quality stuff. It was heavy. It was thousands and thousands of dollars worth of kitchen. She said, 'What are you going to do with it?' I said, 'I'll work with my Aboriginal mates up in the Kimberley and we'll work something out.' I rang Clinton Wolf, my friend from Marra Worra Worra, and said, 'Mate, what do you want to do with this kitchen?' He said, 'You couldn't have come at a better time. We're building a safe house for the kids that don't enjoy the same safety that our kids and a lot of other kids enjoy.' So that's going to be put in. The chippies are up there in Fitzroy. They're measuring it all up. They helped me to unload it last Monday or Tuesday. What a great donation that was. Thanks, Christy, and thank you, Anna.</para>
<para>But I just want to say this: Fitzroy Crossing—it's well known that I haunt the place. I haunt the Kimberley. I haunt the valley, particularly Fitzroy. A lot of other people love to go to the Kimberley in April, May and June, but they don't get past Broome. If they do, they'll pop into Kununurra, but they don't see the real Kimberley through the centre. The place is abuzz, and I'll tell you why it's abuzz: because the federal and state governments have done a magnificent job. I wouldn't care what colour those governments are, but these two have done a magnificent job.</para>
<para>We lost the Fitzroy River bridge, a single-lane bridge. It is the major link between Perth and the Northern Territory, going through to Halls Creek, Warmun, Wyndham, Kununurra and Darwin. You can imagine all that produce that couldn't come back. The road trains had to run across the Nullarbor, adding 6½ thousand kilometres to their journeys, let alone the cost. That bridge got wiped out in a once-in-a-100-year event, and it was a mangled piece of iron. I was up there looking at the mangled piece of iron in March, I think it was. I was back up there again in June and then again last week. The new bridge is nearly finished. The new bridge was supposed to be finished at the end of next year. All going well, it's going to be at least six months early. Thank goodness for that, but what a magnificent job.</para>
<para>I don't know these people, but I'm going to call them out: Georgiou Consortium. Georgiou—I've heard of them but I don't know them—with BMD Group are the nominated preferred proponents to form an alliance with Main Roads and design consultant BG&E to deliver the Fitzroy River Bridge. What a magnificent job they've done—24 hours a day, seven days a week. They've had storms and rains up there, unseasonal. It's shut it all down again for a couple of days. They're going non-stop, gangbusters. When I spoke to the manager of the project when I did the tour there last week, he told me proudly that 240 Aboriginal people in the Fitzroy Valley have been employed on that job, and some of them have been recruited and FIFOed to other projects down in Perth. How good is that?</para>
<para>Another great story is that, on the Dales, there were 130 Aboriginal people working on that job. These were people who hadn't had construction skills. The governments and Georgiou and the consortium just threw everything at it to get them up to speed and get them employed. What a great feeling, walking on that job with all those local faces.</para>
<para>To cap it off, there's a very dear friend of mine, a very proud Bunuba man from Fitzroy, Keith Andrews. Keith's had visions and dreams about his people and what he could do for them. It's sad that it took such a disaster to do this, but the bright side needs to be told. So I caught up with Keith the other day and I said: 'How are you mate? Tell me what you're up to.' He has successfully started his own business on the back of the consortium. It's called Countrymen Rubbish Removal. He employs eight of his fellow countrymen, and they are employed and engaged through the council now to actually clean up the place. They're so proud. They're just cleaning up. They're getting rid of the rubbish and old cars. Keith, in an even greater story, has been awarded, I think, the sewerage contract—Keith, if I get it wrong, I know you'll sort me out when I'm back up there next time—for the township, which is just a dream come true. We don't all dream about sewerage, but for Keith and his people it is a magnificent opportunity to run the sanitary requirements around Fitzroy.</para>
<para>That contract has been held by a major multinational consortium called Cleanaway.</para>
<para>Cleanaway have done extraordinarily well for the folk of the Kimberley all these years without being challenged. They've done it, and good luck to them. But then Keith approached them and said, 'Can I buy your tanker and your truck and all that?' and they said no. I thought that was pretty damn mean-spirited from a multinational corporation. For crying out loud, it was probably written off 20 or 30 years ago. It probably started its life in Sydney, made its way down to Wagga, ended up in Adelaide, found its way through to Port Hedland and then was given to Fitzroy Crossing. So if anyone knows anyone in Cleanaway, can they just put in a phone call to the GM and say, 'For Christ's sake, mate, what's the value on the damn thing?' Keith doesn't want it for nothing, but, God almighty, can't we extend that generosity and say thank you and well done to local people in Fitzroy who care about their people, their families and their community?</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>36</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RENNICK</name>
    <name.id>283596</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australia faces a leadership crisis. We have a crisis amongst our leadership with their intellect and with their integrity and—most notably in regard to their integrity—with their lack of intellect as to what we are going to do moving forward to solve the cost-of-living crisis. Just yesterday, we saw the RBA raise interest rates yet again, for the umpteenth time in the last two years, and somehow that's expected to solve the economy? Well, that is not going to happen. We need to have a serious review of the way this country is run. While I won't pretend to be able to stop the transmission of airborne viruses or change the climate, I can use my financial controlling skills to review the way that government operates in this country.</para>
<para>One of the things we have to do in this country is actually have a serious federation convention to look at the excess bureaucracies in this country. Time after time, I go into estimates and I get stonewalled by bureaucrats with smug grins on their faces, taking questions on notice, refusing to answer questions and complaining about answering questions. That is an utter disgrace to the hardworking Australians whose taxes pay these bureaucrats. We need to look at reforming our federation to streamline the roles and responsibilities of both state and federal governments, to look at the vertical fiscal imbalance and the duplication of services given to the Australian people, because the Australian taxpayer's dollars matter. Let me tell you the brown paper bags of yesterday are today's green tape, red tape, black tape, blue tape—you name it, there's a bureaucrat out there somewhere rorting the system with unnecessary rules and procedures that are destroying the entrepreneurship and the aspiration that Australian people so badly need and deserve.</para>
<para>This federation convention that we have should be broken into constitutional changes and non-constitutional changes. Clearly, the non-constitutional changes would be much easier to make. I'll give you one example we could look at: the way federal highways are funded. Currently, the federal government funds 80 per cent of the federal highways and the state government funds 20 per cent of the highways. Then the state government goes on and pays, generally, a foreign contractor to build those roads. You have to seriously ask why we have foreign contractors building these roads and why we couldn't get the federal government to fund these roads 100 per cent and then have a civil engineering corps in the Army. That wouldn't require a change in the Constitution. All it would require is a bit of common sense and willpower between state and federal governments.</para>
<para>The next thing we need to look at is our taxation system. Our taxation system is inherently flawed to give concessions to the wealthy and to foreign interests. We need to look at closing the loopholes with universities under section 51 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. We need to look at ensuring everyone pays their tax. Section 855 of the 1997 act says that if you're a foreigner and you make a capital gain on non-real assets—that includes the sale of water rights—you don't pay capital gains tax. We have to look at Aboriginal land trusts and see why they don't have to pay tax on native title royalties and mining royalties. We have to look at section 128F of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. It's called the public offer test. It effectively allows foreign banks to earn interest here in Australia and pay no tax on it.</para>
<para>Most of all, we have to look at our withholding tax system in this country, which has a higher tax rate for onshore earnings than it does for offshore earnings. I'll give you one example of how this works. I've got here the Securities and Exchange Commission report from Pfizer on 30 June 2022. On 30 June 2022, Pfizer had a revenue of $100 billion for that 12 months. They made $34 billion profit before tax. They had a profit ratio of 34 per cent.</para>
<para>But if you have a look at the Australian Pfizer financial accounts, they made revenue of $1.3 billion but only made $94 million in profit. That is, their operating profit ratio was only seven per cent. You have to ask yourself, why did Pfizer only have an operating profit ratio of seven per cent here in Australia when their worldwide operating profit ratio was 34 per cent? I will tell you why: it's because the rate of tax in Australia, at 30c, is more than twice the rate of tax on interest royalties and rent paid offshore. We can see what Pfizer has done, because there's a trick to the way you read these accounts: you go into related-party payments. If we go to the back of the account we can see an outstanding figure to Pfizer Service Company Ireland of $1.1 billion. Why would they actually pay Ireland $1.1 billion for services? It's because Ireland only has a company tax rate of 10c.</para>
<para>It's very easy: we have to restructure the way we tax earnings in this country, because our current tax system encourages earnings derived here in Australia to go offshore and then we turn around and give a tax break to banks to lend money onshore. If anyone understands what a balance sheet looks like, that means we encourage foreign debt and push domestic equity offshore. Let me tell you something: debt is slavery and equity is freedom. If we want to make sure our children grow up in a prosperous country, like we grew up in and that our forefathers built for us, then we have to reform our tax system.</para>
<para>The last thing which we need to look at, most of all, is the least understood of all these measures: our monetary policy. Basically, there are three levers to control monetary policy: qualitative and quantitative easing and macroprudential. I'll touch on macroprudential first. In 1985, Paul Keating lifted the capital controls in this country. According to the Parliamentary Budget Office, that meant that in 1995 the Australian government had $8 million in debt, and by 2008 they had $36 billion in debt. But, here's the thing: the banks had $6 billion in debt in 1985 and by 2008 they had $800 billion in foreign debt. Is that the right thing to do? No, it isn't. Our one and only banking royal commission in 1937—note, I'm referring to the only banking royal commission. There was another one in 2016 that dealt with corruption in the banking, financial and superannuation industries, but the actual real banking commission, which set Australia up for prosperity through the 1960s and 1970s, said: 'The most desirable banking system in the present circumstances of Australia is one which includes privately owned trading banks. The system contemplated is one in which a strong central bank regulates the volume of credit'—the volume of credit—'and the distribution of credit is left to privately owned trading banks.'</para>
<para>What does the 'volume of credit' mean? It means that there is debt and equity on a balance sheet. What Paul Keating did in 1985 was to remove all the macroprudential controls, lift all the capital controls and just let the banks rip. They went out and borrowed $800 billion instead of the government enforcing that corporations and banks use domestic savings. If we actually want to increase supply instead of destroying demand, which is what the RBA is doing, we need to issue credit—we need to issue new capital. There are two ways to issue capital: either issue bonds or issue shares. For some strange reason, governments only ever issue bonds and yet governments—sovereign governments, at least—have title over all the land. The question is: why don't they issue new shares against sovereign infrastructure? Okay?</para>
<para>That sovereign infrastructure, of course, is power stations, dams, roads, rail, ports, airports and telecommunications. Corporations issue new shares all the time; a mining company might want to open up a new mine and it will issue a new share. So how do we go about implementing this idea? We issue one share in a bank called the infrastructure bank, and that share will be owned by our children and called 'untapped wealth'. That infrastructure bank can then lend to federal or state governments.</para>
<para>Say, for example, a state government wants to build a dam for a billion dollars. If the infrastructure bank that's owned by the Australian people makes a loan to the state government for a hundred years at one per cent, that means that the first billion dollars in wealth that the state government makes would be repaid to the federal government. The key point here is that that first billion dollars in wealth stays within Australia. Right now, we go and tap the world's biggest market, of course, which is the US Treasury bond market. The US Treasury bond market is money that is printed by the Federal Reserve privately owned banks in the States. It's not actually US dollars it's printing; it's the privately owned bank dollars it's printing. Every time we create new infrastructure assets here, when we repay that debt, we let all that wealth go offshore.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Defence Force</title>
          <page.no>38</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australians know that I talk a lot about cover-ups that go on in Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs, but there is another agency which, if it were doing its job properly, would have saved me having to make quite a few of my speeches. That's because this agency is the one that is supposed to look into cover-ups and failures in our military justice system. I am talking about the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force, or the IGADF. This agency was established in 2003 following an inquiry into military justice in the Australian Defence Force, because it wasn't working back then either. It's still not working. Basically, this means that the IGADF provides advice to senior command and deals with allegations of abuse, cover-up, harassment and avoidance of due process. It sounds fabulous, doesn't it? It sounds great, but the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force have not been doing their job. They never have been, right from the beginning. They are supposed to be the cops on the beat, but really they are just there to cover up the mess of senior command.</para>
<para>For years, veterans have been telling me about the IGADF covering Defence's butt. The royal commissions have been hearing the same stories that I have been. As Reverend Nikki Coleman told the Melbourne hearing in August, 'As a chaplain I have also been support person and friends with others who have gone with their concerns to the IGADF, and they've been fobbed off.' The reverend knows what she is talking about. She has a PhD in military ethics, and she has experienced the Defence culture of cover-up firsthand. She is no shrinking violet, I can assure you. Dr Coleman worked in a male dominated workplace for 25 years. She was a reverend for the Uniting Church when she joined the RAAF to work as a chaplain in 2017. In 2019, a military colleague started to abuse her. Over months, she was subjected to physical and sexual assault. When Dr Coleman tried to report this behaviour, she was told to 'manage it herself'. She was given suggestions about how to 'manage' her abuser. That's right: 'manage her abuser'. Are you kidding me?</para>
<para>This is the revolting stuff that has been going on in Defence for years, even after we had the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce in 2013-14. Ten of Dr Coleman's complaints were upheld. Wait! It gets better. Her abuser got to continue to work in defence. Nothing new here—same story, different day. She was told that she must not share that information about what happened to her. This doesn't just smell of cover-up; it is cover-up at its best. Dr Coleman had to take a medical discharge so she could tell her story. This is what happens to people who are abused in our forces. They have to leave, while their abusers get promoted and get to stay. I've heard the same awful stories in my office for years. That is why we're at a royal commission, except Defence still won't hand over to the royal commission all the documents the commissioners have asked for.</para>
<para>So, in budget estimates in May this year, I asked how often the IGADF had been audited. We heard the answer: never. The IGADF has never been audited, so I thought I would write to the Australian National Audit Office and ask them to do an audit. Why did I ask for an audit? It's because of an 85 per cent increase in staff in just one year. They've never been audited. Most importantly, it was because of criticisms from the royal commission, like Dr Coleman's stories. That's the auditors' job, isn't it? The ANAO said, 'No, we won't.' I wrote again. Again they said no. I wrote to the ANAO and asked for another audit, and then—you are not going to believe this, Australians; this just keeps getting better—in estimates a few weeks ago, we learnt that, when I asked the Auditor-General, who is supposed to be completely independent, to audit the IGADF, the first calls the Auditor-General made were to the Secretary to the Department of Defence, Greg Moriarty, and the CDF to ask them for permission.</para>
<para>Who does that? The ANAO is meant to be independent. I tell you—it's not independent. You just blew it. You have a lot of questions to answer, I can assure you. You've been an absolute disgrace in the last few weeks, in my eyes. I can tell you what: if someone needs to be audited right now, it's the ANAO. You have a lot of explaining to do. I just want you to wake up, Minister Marles, because you can't see the cover-ups that are going on. I have to ask you: why is Moriarty still there, and why is the CDF still there? Quite frankly, this is beyond a joke now. This is absolutely disgraceful. I'm coming for you next, Marles. I've had a gutful.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tourism Industry</title>
          <page.no>39</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'NEILL</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to commend the work of the Albanese government in the realm of foreign affairs and trade. Many Australians all over the country have seen the images of the Prime Minister meeting with his Chinese counterpart and working to build a more reliable and productive relationship with one of our biggest trading partners. This is most welcome, because we are a trading nation. We are a strong and robust democracy. This is in stark contrast to how the previous Morrison government managed Australia's international affairs. The Albanese government has turned this nation from a pariah on the international stage to a trustworthy member of the international community. While the Albanese government will increase dialogue, it's important also to reiterate that our relationship with China is founded on principles of cooperation where possible and disagreement where that is also necessary. It's a sophisticated, nuanced and important relationship, and we must attend to it with care, in the interest of our nation.</para>
<para>With the establishment of this robust trading relationship come new opportunities for Australian exports such as timber, wine, barley and tourism. The whole of Australia has hugely benefited from past tourism from Chinese citizens and tour groups, and, while we're very aware of the beauty that our nation can share with the world, it's very important that we attend to the actual, practical reality of having a robust tourism sector. The flow-on effects for regional Australia, businesses and jobs cannot be shoved into a corner in the darkness. We must remind ourselves of how important this is.</para>
<para>In the recent announcements from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Qiang, they welcomed the contribution of people-to-people exchanges in the bilateral relationship, including increases in the exchange of students, tourists and businesspeople following the lifting of border measures. This includes the introduction of three-to-five year multi-entry visas for visitors and businesspeople to create more long-lasting opportunities and connections for trade. Of course, these need to be scrutinised in ways that enhance our own national security at the same time.</para>
<para>Within my own duty electorates, there are many opportunities for local businesses who benefit from the hard work of their government, the Albanese Labor government. The Bush Bus and Blueline will, hopefully, have buses of international students coming nonstop, while timber mills such as Newells Creek Sawmilling has a great opportunity for trade. The lush and historic Riverina should see more businesses coming to take advantage of good-quality Australian timber produced at Natural Edge Milling while they bask in the majesty of Kengal Aboriginal Place. Parks and the beautiful rural and agrarian land can see the benefits to users of its primary industry, like Narrabri Farm Centre, and have increased interest while international visitors enjoy the stargazer's dream that is Warrumbungle National Park. Farrer, the food bowl of New South Wales, can take advantage of greater international demand for livestock feed through local businesses like the Coprice Coleambally Mill, where visitors come to see the lifeblood of Australia. Great benefits will come from all those businesses that rely on the Murray-Darling River continuing to succeed. Visitors to Calare, domestic and international, should look forward to watching the Bathurst race while enjoying a sip of the booming wine business at the base of Mount Panorama Wines. Within the beautiful electorate of Hume, I hope to see wineries such as the Greenwich Park Winery enjoy an uptick in demand for a solid Australian product. This combines with the picturesque vineyards that scatter the region, which would most definitely welcome an increase in holidaymakers.</para>
<para>A further aspect of the joint outcome statement was an agreement to practical steps to advance dialogue in areas of common interests, including climate change, trade and people-to-people links. While there are many and important differences to note between Australia and China, the differences should not be the only things that define our relationships. Dialogue is key for all different types of relationships, and Australia's relationship with China is one of the most important to the nation in terms of trade. This is vital for regional stability and security. It's to our shared mutual advantage to have an Asia-Pacific that is peaceful, stable and prosperous, particularly in a time of global headwinds. It strengthens the economy, it supports jobs, it safeguards business, and it helps set Australia up for a safe and prosperous future.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Meat Industry</title>
          <page.no>39</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McDONALD</name>
    <name.id>123072</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Australian meat industry is facing attacks on multiple fronts and most assertively from the plant protein lobby. From a quick glance at the websites of such companies as Food Frontier and Impossible Foods and the Alternative Proteins Council, you'd be forgiven for thinking they just want to introduce more people to plant based meals. They say they want to save the planet by encouraging more people to eat plant proteins, but they also criticise traditional agriculture as a major driver of world emissions and climate change. Their plan is to reduce emissions by reducing animal farming. They appeal to youths to get angry, join the movement and demand change. In 2021, the CEO of plant protein company Impossible Foods, Pat Brown, said that he wanted to end all animal farming by 2035.</para>
<para>The Alternative Proteins Council was founded in 2021, with Food Frontiers acting as the secretariat. The council promotes itself as merely a marketing body, and it is quick to jump on suggestions that it has activist tendencies—even demanding that journalists take down stories that quoted me saying exactly this. I invite the CEO of the APC, Jennifer Thompson, to publicly deny that her group wants to see an end to animal farming and say what APC's links to Food Frontiers actually are, because, while the APC claims it merely wants to help create more food for a growing world, the organisations it represents are highly critical of animal farming. Food Frontier, Cellular Agriculture Australia, Change Foods and Harvest B are all very critical of animal production.</para>
<para>If we take APC at its word, and it doesn't want to end animal farming, it is still clear that it is a front for those making a concerted effort to discredit the animal protein industry. They seek to exert this influence not through clever marketing or creative labelling but by unfairly attacking one of our most important and sustainable industries and all the people who participate in it. Instead of mounting a staunch defence of Australian primary production, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Murray Watt, has sided with the activists at every opportunity. He's banned live sheep exports. He doesn't show the slightest interest in the end of commercial fishing in North Queensland. He couldn't wait to sign Australia up to the global methane pledge. He's forcing farmers to pay for biosecurity services which should be part and parcel of any government's responsibilities. Now he's refusing to honour a Labor election promise to legislate food-labelling laws that will protect traditional agriculture and leather industries in this country.</para>
<para>At a recent Senate estimates hearing, it was shocking to hear the Albanese Labor government is still sitting on its hands because the Alternative Proteins Council have come up with their own guidelines on food labelling that the department has gone out to consult on again, despite extensive consultation already. A close look at these guidelines reveals the APC is still advocating for the use of established names for animal proteins, such as beef, chicken and lamb, and is merely advising companies to ensure they use the same font for vegan qualifier words on packaging. It also states that companies can use animal imagery on food packaging so long as it takes up less than 15 per cent of the space. These are exactly the problems which were highlighted in the Senate inquiry as causing consumer confusion and which need to be dealt with in legislation. But, instead of acting to protect Australian farmers and leather makers, Labor says it is reviewing the APC guidelines.</para>
<para>Compare this to the minister's handling of Australia's live sheep export trade.</para>
<para>Like the APC, the live export industry launched its own animal welfare guidelines years ago, but that didn't stop Labor from moving quickly to shut it down. It's a nice, collaborative approach to activists by this government but cold efficiency when it comes to attacking primary producers. That Labor would halt progress on this legislation because of a vocal minority of activists is beyond the pale. We should be protecting the intellectual property of Australia's $26 billion meat industry and supporting the farmers, graziers and processors who invest millions of dollars in brand recognition and confidence in Australia's seafood, red meat, pork, chicken and dairy industries.</para>
<para>The constant delays are another broken promise by this government and an abrogation of its sworn duty to protect long-established, proven and valuable Australian primary industries.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Disability Insurance Scheme</title>
          <page.no>40</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEELE-JOHN</name>
    <name.id>250156</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>NDIS participants should be valued and respected as experts in their own experience and deserve to have their needs met under the very scheme that was designed to do just that. Healthcare professionals' advice that disabled people rely on for their NDIS applications should be valued and respected as the product of expert work done by professionals. These are simple and basic propositions. However, the NDIA, under the leadership of this government now for more than two years, has consistently ignored the expertise of disabled people and ignored the reports and advice of healthcare professionals. What is the NDIA, under the leadership of this Labor government, focusing on instead? Still we see a focus on reducing people's plans and giving people the runaround through the AAT.</para>
<para>Every week, my office receives calls from disabled people, and I want to take the Senate through the journey that so many are still experiencing at the hands of the culture within the agency even two years in to this Labor government. Disabled people are still being required to submit endless reports from healthcare professionals, doing so at great personal expense. After gathering these reports they submit them to the agency to support their application or change-of-circumstances review. The agency is then too often either not reading or disregarding the reports provided, sometimes even the ones that agency representatives themselves have asked for. It is just so frustrating.</para>
<para>Just this week my office received calls for help from participants who have had funding slashed by more than 50 per cent despite the evidence that they submitted. This results in a continuation of fear because the agency is cutting people's plans against expert advice, denying disabled people choice and control and forcing them to appeal to the AAT. Speaking of the AAT: let us discuss and explore what a costly, wasted exercise this process often is for people. Too many people are still ending up at the AAT. Too many participants do not have the luxury of expensive legal representation and face adversarial barriers from lawyers representing the agency, who treat the AAT like a courtroom and disabled people like criminals.</para>
<para>Of course there is a great personal cost to a disabled person challenging a decision at the tribunal, but let's for a moment face the wasted of taxpayer money in this process too. I'll give you an example. A participant requested a support from the NDIA that was calculated to cost around $29,000 in one year. So far, in fighting that request over a three-year period involving 19 direction hearings, the agency has disclosed that it has cost them no less than $109,000. This does not make sense. Another example I can give to the Senate is of a participant who fought the agency for two years at an overall legal cost to the agency of $186,000. This participant was eventually awarded almost every support that they had requested through the review. That was more wasted public funds fighting disabled people for support that they should have received.</para>
<para>This situation has been laid bare by the independent reviewers appointed by the government as part of a process announced after the election. They are so alarmed by what they found they have made their own submission to the NDIS independent review, stating, 'Many decisions that we reviewed were based on decision-makers focusing on the cost to the scheme rather than the valid request of supports according to the law. In many cases t there appeared to be a failure to follow the evidence in expert reports and listen to lived experience.' This is a product of a broken culture that is still being promoted by this government, a culture which treats disabled people as though we are trying to get a support that we are not entitled to. This needs to end.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aviation Industry</title>
          <page.no>41</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's clear we need more competition in Australia to drive down prices and improve protections for consumers, not just in aviation but right across the board, everything from groceries to banking to energy. There are some six million Australians with mortgages facing a 13th interest rate rise who are working out how they're going to pay for it. In this cost-of-living crisis, it's so important that where government can take action it does so as quickly as possible. It's why I worked constructively with the government to secure the urgent reinstatement of ACCC flight monitoring. This monitoring should never have ceased. An industry where Qantas and Virgin have 95 per cent of the market share warrants scrutiny. I would argue that that sort of market share is a failure of politics here in Australia for not ensuring that it does not happen.</para>
<para>Reinstating it was one of the key recommendations coming out of the Senate Select Committee on Commonwealth Bilateral Air Service Agreements chaired by Senator McKenzie. Senator McKenzie, Senator Sheldon, Senator Dean Smith and many others did really good work on that committee. I supported the establishment of that inquiry and am grateful for the opportunity to have participated in it. At the conclusion, getting outcomes was my focus. Now having ACCC monitoring in place and backdated until 1 July is a real outcome not just for people in the ACT but for all Australians who have been price gouged when it comes to flights. Here in Canberra we have the highest cancellation rate in the country. Companies like Qantas deny allegations of slot hoarding and using their monopoly power, but the evidence seems to contradict what they are saying.</para>
<para>The objective of the bill debated earlier in the name of Senator McKenzie and Senator Dean Smith has now been largely met or superseded. The Treasurer has now signed a direction to the ACCC to monitor prices, costs and profits relating to the supply of domestic air passenger transport services and related goods and services, and this is now on the register. Importantly, it provides for this monitoring to continue for three years, with reports provided at least once every quarter to the Treasurer. The instrument gives the ACCC the information-gathering powers it needs, and the government is also resourcing it to do the job. I am advised the ACCC will be able to look back to 1 July and will also be able to examine broader issues such as disability access, which is a very welcome development.</para>
<para>One of the things that the committee did uncover was the very valid concern around access to Parliament House. Access is a good thing, but we should know who is granting access to whom.</para>
<para>We learnt that the former minister Michael McCormack and the current minister, Catherine King, both sponsored access-all-areas passes to Parliament House for Qantas lobbyists, Qantas employees, to come in here, meet and do their thing, and they seem to have been very effective. I would argue it's in the public interest for Australians to know that the ministers who make decisions that affect companies like Qantas are themselves giving Qantas lobbyists access to this building. They're not on the lobbyist register; they're in-house lobbyists. They hit security and swipe in and they're through. They're walking the corridors, hanging out at Aussies and having meetings, and clearly they're getting things done.</para>
<para>I really look forward to more support in this chamber for a much harder look at lobbying in Australia to ensure that we can hand on heart say to Australians that decisions are being made in their best interests, not in the vested interests of those who walk around this building.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We will now proceed to two-minute statements.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>42</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The biggest issue facing young Australians is housing. The Reserve Bank's decision to increase interest rates because of the Labor government's loose budget policy has meant that housing is going to be so much harder for younger Australians. It's going to be harder for young Australians to get a first home and harder for young Australians to stay in a home. We have seen a very callous response from the Labor Party in response to the huge number of increases to interest rates from the central bank. Labor wants to wash its hands of this issue, but the reality is that the Australian people are going to be looking for solutions to this very acute housing problem.</para>
<para>What we need to see is serious ideas and options to improve supply of housing. We need to see actions from the government to smash down on nimbyism and we need to see movement from the government to construct more houses beyond their centrepiece boondoggle of the Housing Australia Future Fund, which is more about trying to feather the nests of the vested interests of the super funds, as we've seen with Mr Wayne Swan—who's the president of a major super fund and the Labor Party simultaneously—finding a tax break applicable only to super funds who want to build more houses and then lease them back to the Australian people. We are much more interested in seeing people own their own houses, which is why supply and policies to drive supply are so important. But it's important that we help on the demand side, and that's why letting people use their super is a very good idea, but, again, it's not on the table, because Labor is run by the vested interests of the trade unions and the industry super funds.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Inter-Parliamentary Union: 146th Assembly</title>
          <page.no>42</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'NEILL</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Apparently a few in the financial services industry expressed some disappointment over, and noted, my absence at the last budget estimates. While budget estimates are usually somewhere I would be with bells on, I was instead taking part in multilateral discussions with other nations. It's an important role for all parliamentarians, from the PM to the newest backbencher, to engage with other countries. We live on an island continent, but we are part of a global economy. We are a trading nation and we share the planet.</para>
<para>Two weeks ago I was in Angola representing Australia in a cross-party delegation for the 47th Parliament at the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the IPU. I was joined by my esteemed colleagues Mr Julian Hill, Mr Warren Entsch, Senator Linda Reynolds and of course the delegation lead, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr Milton Dick. I'd also like to thank parliament's IPU team of Jane Thompson and Elise Williamson, DFAT delegates and members of the Australian Federal Police.</para>
<para>I will note, though, that this was a multiparty delegation. Together, we understood the importance of acting and working as one team with one message for our great nation, Australia. I commend the member for Leichhardt and the senator for Western Australia—and I congratulate that same senator, Linda Reynolds, for her advance of the orphanage trafficking statement that came out with unanimous support—for sincerely appreciating the importance of putting partisan differences aside when we're representing the nation. This is markedly different from others who wish to turn foreign affairs into a domestic political football and struggle with understanding the fact that words matter. I want to congratulate Milton Dick, the elected member of the executive committee for the Asia-Pacific Group, who will be working with our region and for our nation through the international forum that is the IPU.</para>
<para>I don't take for granted the luck that I experienced when I was born into this beautiful, free country. But, if we are to do our work as politicians, we do not have the luxury of only looking inwards; we must turn to the world.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gaza: Casualties</title>
          <page.no>42</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARUQI</name>
    <name.id>250362</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This parliament is doing everything possible to avoid acknowledging the killing of thousands of civilians by Israel in Gaza. We will not let you forget. Your cowardice and shameful greenlighting of war crimes will go down in history. These are the people that have been massacred because Labor refuses to join the world in calling for a ceasefire: Elaine Helmy Atallah Al-Qara, aged 80; Fikreya Hassan Mesbah Abdel-Al, 76; Reda Ibrahim Muhammad Saleha, 76; Hosni Mohamed Mohamed Saleha, 68; Souad Tawfiq Taha Al-Halabi, 56; Manal Ahmed Mohamed Saleha, 52; Khitam Muhammad Hussein Saleha, 38; Noha Abdel Majeed Hashem Aslim, 32; Hiyam Wajih Mahmoud Abu Zayed, 28; Lana Mazen Nimr Abdel-Al, 22; Shaima Hussein Muhammad Saleha, 21; Waad Ashraf Ismail Al-Qara, 18; Bilal Arafat Fathi Abdel-Al, 17; Jannat Hussein Muhammad Saleha, 17; Yaqin Awad Ahmed Al-Qara, 16; Ibrahim Wajih Mahmoud Abu Zayed, 16; Naglaa Ali Muhammad Al-Qara, 15; Shatha Hussein Mohammed Saleha, 13; Lynn Muhammad Saeed Saleha, 13; Aseel Mahmoud Tayseer Al-Halabi, 12; Yahya Muhannad Sami Aslim, 12—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Faruqi. Senator McGrath.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Faruqi—please.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Faruqi</name>
    <name.id>250362</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>President, I've just started. There are 10,000 more—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I appreciate it's an important position for you, but you understand the standing orders, and I ask you to respect the chamber. Senator McGrath.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Queensland: Bushfires</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>While there has been some good news in Queensland, with positive rainfall over the past few days, over the last week we've witnessed some shocking bushfires across Queensland, including on the Downs and, just down the road from me, in Warwick. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the first responders, especially our volunteer rural firies, across Queensland, without whom we'd have absolutely no hope against the blazes ripping across Queensland. From here in the Senate, our thoughts go to our communities affected, and we thank our emergency services for their incredible efforts. I would particularly like to send my heart out to the three staff members of AGAIR that were killed in a plane crash over the weekend while fire-mapping across north-west Queensland. Our condolences from the Senate go to their families.</para>
<para>Our thoughts also go to Ulrich Widawski and Glenda Chapman, who were tragic victims of the fires in the Tara region of the Western Downs. Our hearts and condolences go out to their friends and families at this difficult time. Many people have lost their homes. I would encourage those watching and listening: donate to your charity of choice to help your fellow Australians and your fellow Queenslanders at this very difficult time. Thank you for your consideration.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Road Safety</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CAROL BROWN</name>
    <name.id>F49</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Tomorrow is the national Road Worker Day of Remembrance, which strives to acknowledge road workers who have been killed or seriously injured at work. Road workers play an often unrecognised and pivotal role in delivering and upkeeping the infrastructure our communities rely on so heavily. Far too many road workers are killed or seriously injured on Australian roads each year. Too many workers never return home. I'm proud that the National Road Safety Action Plan 2023-2025 includes mandating the CLOCS-A standard or the ISO 3900, that road traffic safety management systems be applied to construction projects and programs that are funded by the Australian government.</para>
<para>The primary goal of CLOCS-A is to reduce the number of workers killed and serious injuries occurring on or near road construction sites. The standard aims to do this by improving safety around heavy vehicles for pedestrians, cyclists, motorbike riders and other road users. CLOCS-A can streamline the safety requirements across states and project sites. All accredited project sites will have uniform specifications for vehicle safety standards, driver qualification, logistics management, operating systems and auditing procedures.</para>
<para>The Australian government will mandate CLOCS-A as standard—ISO 3900.1 <inline font-style="italic">Road safety management systems</inline>—for projects funded by the Australian government by late 2025. This mandate is just one of the many actions the Australian government is undertaking to reach Vision Zero—that is, zero deaths and zero serious injuries on our roads by 2050.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Queensland: Judicial System</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What has happened to the presumption of innocence? This was the criticism levelled at the media by the Sofronoff inquiry for broadcasting Brittany Higgins's version of events for years before the trial of Bruce Lehrmann. Shamefully, we are now witnessing another trial by media as journalists publish the claims of a Toowoomba woman now accusing Mr Lehrmann of sexual assault. She had no complaint about her encounter with Lehrmann until six weeks after, when she saw publicity celebrating Higgins and realised that she'd been with the same man.</para>
<para>What did she do then? She visited a compensation lawyer before reporting the matter to the police. She is claiming sexual assault, saying they had sex twice without her giving permission not to use a condom. Mr Lehrmann is pleading not guilty. He drove the woman to get the morning-after pill, and she signed the form indicating that she hadn't been sexually assaulted. Somehow, this woman's claims are now splashed all over the media, destroying any chance of a fair hearing for Mr Lehrmann. With Higgins, initially, the police did not want to charge Mr Lehrmann, concluding that she was 'evasive, uncooperative and manipulative'. In this case, the Toowoomba police sat on it for over a year before charging Lehrmann. Here as well, prosecutors were reluctant to hand over evidence and delayed giving the defence heavily redacted phone records.</para>
<para>The Palaszczuk government's fast-tracking of a law naming Mr Lehrmann but keeping his accuser's identity a secret stinks to high heaven. This is another disgraceful display of believe-the-woman justice. The public lynching of men has become our national sport. I don't know the truth; only two people do. But if it comes down to the use of a condom then it's no one's business but theirs. If you're not happy, don't have sex. I would advise celibacy or to join a nunnery.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Queensland: Bushfires</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McDONALD</name>
    <name.id>123072</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is one of life's cruel ironies and contrasts that fire can provide both life-saving comfort and unimaginable horror. The giver of warmth, light and energy is also a taker of all that we hold precious.</para>
<para>I wish to extend my deepest condolences to those who have lost their homes and their lives already in this bushfire season, and express my great admiration for those men and women fighting the fires and helping people across the country. Three of those fire personnel were killed on Saturday when their plane crashed near my home town of Cloncurry in North West Queensland. Among them was William Jennings from America, aged just 22. The willingness to risk their own lives to protect others is why emergency services staff and volunteers deserve the highest praise and the full support of government in their need for equipment, manpower, training and vegetation management plans. We need a pragmatic and flexible approach to establishing firebreaks in national parks adjoining private property, and we need to listen to the insights and advice of those on the fire fronts.</para>
<para>The MyFireWatch national satellite fire-monitoring service shows hundreds of fires burning, mostly in northern Australia and, particularly, in the north-west. The Northern Territory and Cape York are also burning, putting fire-fighting services on high alert. I urge all Australians to take the threat of bushfire seriously by obeying bans on lighting fires, taking steps to protect their homes and formulating escape and survival plans, should the worst happen. I pray that everyone involved in fire management can get through unscathed, and that all life and property are protected. Thank you again to our brave and dutiful firefighters, especially those volunteer firefighters who are the front line for remote Queensland bushfire-fighting.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, ADHD, is a condition that can cause inattention, impulsivity and hyperactivity. Young Australians are facing a crisis in accessing services to diagnose not only ADHD but other behavioural problems, and, once they have their diagnosis, a crisis in getting the support they need. Young Australians also face a crisis in medical support. As we've discussed in this place over the last eight months, there are questions as to whether Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme adequately cover the costs of medication and questions as to the scope of NDIS coverage of ADHD et cetera.</para>
<para>Yesterday I was extremely disappointed and somewhat disheartened by Senator Hanson's comments about ADHD being—I quote <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>—'a convenient diagnosis excusing poor parenting'. That's an outrageous, uneducated statement for a senator in this place to make. When children are diagnosed they need more support. Their parents need support to ensure their child is getting an adequate education. I want to remind people, like Senator Hanson, who have this outdated and uneducated view that many innovative people—Albert Einstein, Walt Disney, Richard Branson and Vincent van Gogh, just to name a few—live with ADHD and describe their condition as their superpower. There's no tangible evidence between ADHD diagnosis and a life of failure or lack of success. When speaking of people living with ADHD—and, I have to say, there are adults, people over the age of 18, seeking diagnosis—we should not use uneducated terminology in this chamber.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Youth Voice in Parliament Week</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COX</name>
    <name.id>296215</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This speech is part of the Raise Our Voice campaign where parliamentarians are asked to read speeches from our young people to ensure that their voices are heard in this place. My speech reads:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I'm sure you're all aware of the sexism that comes with playing a female sport.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">All female sports are looked down upon and viewed as weak. Netball is almost only female, especially when it comes to professional leagues. Some boys think this is because it is 'too easy'.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">If you're a girl and you play sport, you're going to be a laughing-stock. It is the sad truth all female athletes must face, no matter how painful it is, no matter how much it makes you want to quit and give in to what they say.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">But you cannot give them that satisfaction. Use it to fuel yourself, to play your sport and wear it as a badge with pride, and use it to play your sport with more passion and power.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This is a side of sport they don't like to show, the fact that most guys who play sport look down and laugh at the girls who play sport no matter how good they are. I've experienced this many times already and I'll continue to experience this. I do hope this changes, but there will always be people like that and, unfortunately, I don't think me or any other girls who play sport at my age or older will be able to see a day where we share an equal playing field in sport.</para></quote>
<para>I want to thank this lovely young lady for sending this speech through. I think it highlights all of the key issues for females in sport. I say to her: I hope that you don't give up. We need more women and girls like you out on our fields and courts.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Digital Economy</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BABET</name>
    <name.id>300706</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I begin my excellent presentation, I want to say hello to the kids upstairs from King's College, Warrnambool. Hello, kids! I hope you're doing well.</para>
<para>Today's Optus outrage should act as a warning to all Australians. The proposed central bank digital currency is a terrible idea. Ten million Aussies discovered today that when your access to the internet is disrupted your entire life is disrupted. And it wasn't just individuals. The Optus failure affected hospitals and emergency services.</para>
<para>Was it a system failure? Was it a hack? We don't know at this point. What we do know is that only a fool would see what has happened today and still agree to make his life entirely reliant upon the internet. Governments around the world have been relentless in their push for digital currency and digital ID.</para>
<para>I have continually warned here in this place that this is a recipe for disaster. What happens when your data is hacked? What happens when the government blocks your access to money or services as punishment for stepping out of line, like Nigel Farage? What happens when you exceed your carbon limit and you discover that your ability to buy and sell is suddenly cut off? Online currency and data are great servants, but, as Optus customers discovered to their own hurt today, they are also terrible masters.</para>
<para>People who value freedom—I hope that's most of us here—will resist the push to digitise our lives, our identity and our money. We must resist. While we still have cash—that form of currency that can be accessed without being under the prying, all-seeing eye of the state—we still remain free people. This freedom must not be taken, and it must not be surrendered by the people. We must hold onto cash.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Universities</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HENDERSON</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In the wake of another shocking interest rate rise, which shows the Albanese government has no plan to drive down inflation and address the cost-of-living crisis that so many Australians are facing, I raise serious concerns about the impact this will have on three million Australians with student debt. Under Labor, anyone with a HECS debt was hit with a 7.1 per cent increase in their student loan in June this year. Last year, the increase was 3.9 per cent. Next year, it's expected to be around six per cent. Under the coalition's responsible economic management, HECS indexation averaged just two per cent a year. A 16 per cent increase in student loans over three years under Labor shows it is tone-deaf to the cost-of-living burden this is imposing on millions of Australians.</para>
<para>Along with other senators and members, I also raise serious concerns about the antiquated HECS repayment system, which does not account for loan repayments in real time, adding to student debt. The education minister, Minister Clare, promised to review this system, but instead he has buried it. When I sought details about this review in Senate estimates, his department refused to answer the question. I am delighted the Senate has now ordered the production of these documents by Friday.</para>
<para>To make matters worse, the government has misled student teachers who were promised the chance to apply for scholarships of up to $40,000 if they chose to enrol in a teaching course—an important way to address acute teacher shortages across this country. Under the cover of darkness, with the minister overseas, he announced this $52 million scholarship program but excluded non-government schools and the one-third of Australian teachers who choose to work in an independent or Catholic school. This is discriminatory and imposes a massive cost-of-living burden on those who choose to work in the non-government sector. Labor is missing in action on cost-of-living relief for our university students. It's not good enough.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Maugean Skate</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator TYRRELL</name>
    <name.id>300639</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The fate of the endangered Maugean skate is being blamed on fish farming, but the science is incomplete. The environment minister thinks that reducing fish farming in Macquarie Harbour is the answer, but has she thought about what that means to the people on the west coast? Strahan Primary School says that, if fish farming leaves Macquarie Harbour, it will decimate the school. If the farm goes, the school goes, and five-year-olds will then have to travel an hour each way on the bus to the next closest school. Fish farming jobs pay well. They put a roof over people's heads and put food on the table. If these jobs go from the west coast, they won't be replaced. Families will have to leave to find work.</para>
<para>We haven't explored all possible reasons for why the skate is dying. There is an invasive crab that the locals say is rampant in the harbour, and these crabs eat fish eggs. Science does know that there are new seal colonies at both Macquarie Harbour and Bathurst Harbour, but it can't tell us how many seals there are. We know seals can eat skate. The only 100 per cent known cause of skate deaths are massive storms fuelled by climate change. After one storm, one-third of the tagged skate died. We still can't explain what killed the skate in Bathurst Harbour, though. It's a marine reserve in the heart of a national park. There's never been fish farming anywhere near it. If we really care about saving the Maugean skate, shouldn't we find out what killed it there? If the fish farms close or reduce production, it will have a flow-on effect in Strahan to the doctor's surgery, the pharmacy, the Coffee Shack and Patrick's IGA—all things the town needs to survive. We owe it to the people of the west coast and the Maugean skate to finish the science and find out what is really killing the skate.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy: Stage 3 Tax Cuts</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When I voted for the stage 3 tax cuts in exchange for getting Tassie's housing debt wiped, I said that if the economy was not travelling well in 2024 we would have to reconsider them; we would have to show some courage. Thanks to the Reserve Bank's 13th rate hike yesterday, it's pretty clear that the economy is tanking. Australians will have to find another hundred bucks a month to cover their mortgages. By the way, rate hikes are great for the people who've got a lot of cash. They make money. Meanwhile, low-income Australians are struggling to pay their mortgages, struggling to pay their rent, struggling to pay off their student fees and struggling to put bread and milk on the table. Even worse, they are going without meals and medications. That is the reality.</para>
<para>The Labor Party voted against the stage 3 tax cuts, and they turned into scaredy-cats. They ran a small-target 2022 election campaign and promised not to touch the stage 3 tax cuts. They love ScoMo's tax cuts—absolutely, or they would have got rid of them. Here's what the Treasurer could do. He and the Labor Party could do something about that now. He could take the stage 3 tax cuts off people who are earning over 200,000 bucks a year—that's right, off people like me and every single one of you in here today. He could take that tax relief and pay it forward to Australians on low and middle incomes, because that won't drive up inflation. That will help them pay their rent, pay their mortgages, pay off their student loans and feed their kids.</para>
<para>If there is money left over, you can put it into our public health system. Have you seen it lately? Have a good look at it! It's shocking. And that's not to mention our public education. You could be fixing up our TAFEs. Do you know what, Treasurer? Let's see what you've really got. Let's see what sort of spine you actually have and what you're going to do about the poor out there, because, quite frankly, these taxes are a stretch.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Dean Smith has the call.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Lambie, order! Senator Dean Smith has the call. Reset the clock, please.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Stephen, Cr Strange</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Across our great country, Australians are very, very well served by the many, many people who put their hand up for local government. I want to honour one of those great Western Australian local government councillors, who is an esteemed citizen of a place in my home state of Western Australia called Bruce Rock, 250 kilometres east of Perth in the prosperous Wheatbelt districts. His name is Stephen Strange. Just recently, at the Western Australian Local Government Association Local Government Convention, Stephen Strange was honoured with a life membership of the WA Local Government Association. Stephen Strange represents all that is good about local government representation. He is active in his local community and has been the longest-serving shire president for the Shire of Bruce Rock, having been president since 1997. He has committed himself to public service in local council and across the whole community. How remarkable is this as a demonstration of Stephen Strange's commitment: he has missed only five council meetings and two conferences of the Western Australian Local Government Association in his 34 years of local government service. I want to acknowledge Stephen Strange and his wife, Karen. There is no Stephen Strange without Karen Strange. They travel, work and get great outcomes for their local community together. I want to applaud the work he's done to make roads safer across the Wheatbelt districts of Western Australia and to provide quality aged care for those people who want to age in regional Western Australia. I want to acknowledge the wonderful effort he's made over such a long period of time. Congratulations, Stephen Strange.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Telecommunications</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to provide an update to the chamber on the outage impacting customers using fixed-line mobile and broadband services over the Optus network today. It goes without saying that connectivity is essential for Australians, which is why the impact of this outage on consumers, businesses and services, including hospitals and public transport networks, is very concerning. This morning, the Minister for Communications spoke to the Optus CEO and sought further information about when Optus expects services to recover. We understand the outage resulted from a technical fault, which Optus engineers have been working to resolve. Optus also advised in the last hour that some services are gradually being restored. The government has made clear to Optus that restoration of its network is a priority, and we will continue engaging with Optus as a matter of urgency.</para>
<para>It's also critical that Optus provides customers with proactive and timely updates on the status of the outage and what to expect. A key priority for the government is the Triple Zero service, which plays an essential role in keeping Australians safe. We've engaged with ACMA and the Triple Zero operator, Telstra, today. They will continue to work with Optus, along with other carriers, to support this service, and very shortly the National Emergency Management Agency will convene a meeting about it too.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>47</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Parliamentary Conduct</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a three-minute statement on chamber procedure.</para>
<para>Leave not granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Waters from making a three-minute statement on chamber procedure.</para></quote>
<para>The reason that this is an urgent matter that needs to be debated is that on Monday evening in this chamber, in the course of debate on the counterterrorism bill, Senator Hanson's contribution was awash with racist language, including some despicable race based personal remarks about Senator Faruqi that should be withdrawn and that Senator Hanson should apologise for. Senator Hanson said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Senator Faruqi, I will tell you again: if you don't see yourself as loving this country and abiding by the laws of the country, I have no problem. I will actually take you to the airport and put you on a plane and wave you away …</para></quote>
<para>Not only are these remarks in breach of standing ordering 193, to not personally reflect—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Waters, please resume your seat. Senator Hanson?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Hanson</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Point of order: I've been called obscene names at the back here and I want it retracted, please—withdrawn.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In the interests of the chamber, Senator Waters, if you've made such remarks—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Hanson</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senators Steele-John—I'm sorry—and possibly Shoebridge. Those comments have been made from the back of the chamber to me—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Hanson. I have Senator Shoebridge on his feet. Senator Shoebridge.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Shoebridge</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, I withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you very much.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Steele-John</name>
    <name.id>250156</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you. Senator Waters, you've just started your contribution, but I remind you that you need to address the requirement that this is an urgent matter.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you. As I was saying, the reason that this debate is urgent is that these remarks are not only in breach of standing order 193, to not personally reflect on another senator, but also clearly in breach of the behavioural code for Australian parliamentarians, which this chamber adopted on 8 February this year. Clause 11 of that code states, 'It is a prohibited behaviour for senators to discriminate in any form, including on the grounds of race or religion.' That code, which this chamber has endorsed, describes such behaviour as unacceptable, and it says that it 'will not be tolerated, condoned or ignored'. That is why it is urgent that we debate this matter today and why I sought to make a statement but instead am suspending standing orders to address this matter.</para>
<para>Senators are meant to be complying with this behaviour code even before the enforcement body, the independent parliamentary standards commission, is eventually established—and I urge the government to hurry up on that front. I am calling on Senator Hanson to withdraw her comments—comments that, I might add, she has made on a number of previous occasions as well—that she will drive Senator Faruqi to the airport and wave her away. It is tantamount to saying, 'Go back to where you came from,' as if Senator Faruqi is not an Australian, as if Senator Faruqi is not a citizen of this country, as if she is not an elected representative for the people of New South Wales. Senator Hanson needs to withdraw these remarks and apologise unconditionally.</para>
<para>The whole point of having codes of conduct, as recommended by the <inline font-style="italic">Set </inline><inline font-style="italic">the standard</inline> report, as endorsed by this chamber, is to set the standard for other workplaces. It's to make this a safe workplace, it's to act with dignity and it's to not actively discriminate against others on the basis of their race, their gender, their sexuality, their religion. People of colour deserve to feel safe and welcome in this country and not have the likes of Senator Hanson say foul and racially discriminatory things which amount to 'Go back to where you came from.' There is no place for this kind of hateful language here or anywhere in this country.</para>
<para>If Senator Hanson will not voluntarily withdraw her repugnant remarks against Senator Faruqi and apologise for them, I ask you, President, to ask Senator Hanson to uphold the standing orders and the behaviour code and withdraw and apologise.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government will be supporting the suspension. We think this is an important matter and the conduct of senators is important in this chamber, especially in relation to racially discriminatory language, which allegedly has been used. This could have all been dealt with by now if leave had been granted, but, given it wasn't, we support the suspension.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Those comments that were made were in relation to a speech, and actually what I said was:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We heard Mehreen Faruqi's disgust of Israel and what they have done to protect themselves. Through their retaliation they said: 'We've had enough. We've have had a gutful of this,' and now they are defending themselves. Good on them; I don't blame them. But the fact is that it's a pity that Mehreen Faruqi didn't—</para></quote>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hanson, please refer—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm reading from what I said.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hanson—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will say—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hanson, please resume your seat. I was not in the chamber when you made that contribution. I am in the chamber now, and I am directing you to refer to the senator by her correct name.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This is in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> but anyway all right. We'll go to Senator Faruqi:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… didn't look at what Pakistan did to two million Afghan people there. They just went in, bulldozed their homes, said, 'Go back to Afghanistan.' What about those people?</para></quote>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hanson, please resume your seat. Senator Waters.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Waters</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Point of order: Senator Hanson is merely repeating what is already on the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> and that we have all had the displeasure of reading, which is why we are currently complaining about a breach of standing orders and the Code of Conduct, and simply repeating those comments takes us no further to a solution.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Waters, Senator Hanson is entitled to make those remarks. I was not in the chamber at the time when these remarks were made. But, senators in this place, we all know this is a chamber that allows broad-ranging debate that some of us might agree with and some of us may not agree with. Senator Hanson, as long as she remains within the standing orders and, like all senators, does not make personal reflections on other senators is within the standing orders. Senator Hanson.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Where is the fear for them? Oh no, that's right: Pakistan is the country that she came from, so we can't criticise the Pakistanis, can we? No, not at all.</para></quote>
<para>I then said—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hanson, in the same way I reminded Senator Waters, this matter is about why this matter is urgent, so I would ask you to address your comments to the urgency motion. Thank you.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My comments refer back to what Senator Waters was saying. I said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Senator Faruqi, I will tell you again: if you don't see yourself as loving this country and abiding by the laws of the country, I have no problem. I will actually take you to the airport—</para></quote>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hanson, that was a personal reflection. I'm going to ask you to withdraw that.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, that's a serious matter. Let me think about it.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order!</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Faruqi, there's a tissue here for you if you'd like.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Hanson, please resume your seat. I understand there are a number of points of order. I am going to deal with the matter in the first instance. Senator Hanson, as I said to you, I was not in the chamber when this matter first came up. I am in the chamber now. I am the President. You made a personal reflection. It's not up for debate. I have asked you to withdraw that, and I remind you again you need to withdraw.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I used to make those same statements at immigration ceremonies to people, and they accepted—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hanson, please resume your seat. You are not debating with me. You have made a personal reflection. It is not in accordance with the standing orders. I have asked you or I have directed you to withdraw that statement. I simply ask you to withdraw without making any further comment.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I believe I'm speaking on behalf of millions of Australians, and, no, I won't—</para>
<para> </para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hanson! That is a very serious matter. You have breached the standing orders. I'm asking you to take a few moments and reflect on what I have directed you to do, and that is to withdraw that personal reflection. It doesn't matter what you may have said outside of the chamber. We all have to abide by the standing orders in here, including me. You have made a personal reflection on a senator, and I ask that you withdraw those remarks.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Hanson</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I expect senators in this place to respect the Australian people and our laws and our views. I will—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hanson! Senator Hanson, I'm withdrawing the call from you, and I'm moving to the next speaker. Are you seeking to make a point of order, Senator Hanson-Young?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Hanson-Young</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, I am, President. Senator Hanson is wilfully and continually ignoring your direction. That is a reflection on you as President. It's a serious breach of the standing orders. She should be named, and she should be held to account for that.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Hanson-Young. I'm well aware of the standing orders and what has just occurred. I have asked the senator to withdraw the remarks. I've now withdrawn the call from her. I'll see if there are any other speakers. Senator Farrell.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would ask that, when senators speak in this place, we speak with respect and understanding for difference; that we reject those in this country, politicians included, who seek to create division when we should be striving for unity; and that we reject hate and condemn prejudice and discrimination in all of its forms. We must maintain mutual respect for each other here and at home, and we must preserve our uniquely harmonious, multicultural character. That is why people come to this country. It's who we are as a country.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>President, I would draw the Senate's attention to the motion moved through this parliament according to wording supported by Senator Wong and me on Tuesday 27 September 2022. This motion made clear that this Senate condemns racism and discrimination in all its forms. It assures all migrants to Australia that they are valued, welcome members of society. It affirms that, if parliament is to be a safe place for all who work and visit here, there can be no tolerance for racism or discrimination in the course of parliamentarians' public debate, and it calls on all senators to engage in debates and commentary respectfully and to refrain from inflammatory and divisive comments, both inside and outside the chamber, at all times. Those words stand as true today as they did on that occasion, and that is the approach that all senators should apply.</para>
<para>In speaking to that debate at that time, President, I made a plea to all senators—particularly those at that end of the chamber—to stay out of the gutter, to rise above the Twitterverse, and to play the ball, not the person. I said that, in the conduct of debates in this place, the interjections and swipes made across the chamber, the insinuations and the other comments just don't have a place and that everybody around here should live up to a higher standard. Frankly, we see it coming from far too many directions too often, motivated in a whole range of different ways.</para>
<para>This debate is about suspension of standing orders. If leave had been granted, we would have had a three-minute statement from Senator Waters, which she has now made, essentially, in the statement that she made, raising all of the issues she expected to. The coalition did not deny leave. We would have welcomed and allowed that statement and facilitated it, just as we would have facilitated a response to that statement, because that would have been the proper course of events. But right now, around Australia, Australian households are doing it tough. There are plenty of issues for this Senate to be focusing on, rather than the petulant, petty arguments between different senators. So we won't be supporting any more time being given to these types of debates. We think we should get on with the issues facing Australians. I've made clear our position and the principles. I urge senators to live up to a higher standard, but I most particularly urge you all to get on with debating issues that are impacting every Australian right now.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There is no basis for this urgency motion, none at all. Not one word of Senator Waters referred to anything about Senator Hanson's comments as being racist. It is a concoction. Senator Watt reaffirmed it.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Roberts, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts has the right to be heard in silence, and I would ask all senators in this place to reflect on the words of senators Farrell and Birmingham. Senator Roberts.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There's no basis for urgency. I also remind people that base racism is where someone refers to someone's race and then attributes superiority or inferiority. Senator Hanson did not even refer to race, did not even refer to skin colour; she referred to 'going home'. That's it. This is yet another stitch-up because you're scared of Senator Hanson. She is very capable, very patriotic, very fair, very honest. You can't put her down normally so you put her down with a label.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Roberts, I remind you that this is an urgency motion. I ask you, as you did in your opening remarks, to continue to reflect on the need for an urgency motion.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Because Senator Hanson did not do what Senator Waters claimed, there is no need for an urgency motion at all.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARUQI</name>
    <name.id>250362</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I just want to say that, sure, what Senator Birmingham and Senator Farrell have said are all good words but they don't matter. Words don't matter unless we hold people accountable, President.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Faruqi, please resume your seat. I acknowledge that you are part of the response today, but we are right now debating an urgency motion, so you need to confine your remarks to the urgency motion.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARUQI</name>
    <name.id>250362</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's exactly about the urgency motion. The urgency motion is about holding people accountable for things that they say in the chamber and that's all that we are asking—that Senator Hanson be held accountable for what she has said—and this chamber is not willing to do that. I urge the chamber and you as the President of this chamber to ask Senator Hanson to withdraw because that is how we set the standard in this place—by holding people accountable for what comes out of their mouths, especially language which is a racial slur.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Faruqi, as you would be aware, I did ask Senator Hanson on several occasions to withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with the comments made by my leader, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the question be now put.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the question be put.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the urgency motion as moved by Senator Waters be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [14:18]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>34</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                <name>Cox, D.</name>
                <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                <name>Lines, S.</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                <name>Polley, H.</name>
                <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>28</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Babet, R.</name>
                <name>Birmingham, S. J.</name>
                <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                <name>Hume, J.</name>
                <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names />
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I appreciate the chamber's support in suspending standing orders to talk about this most crucial matter, and that is the conduct that we will tolerate, the words that we say we will tolerate and then the actions that are taken when those alleged behavioural standards are broken. So I'm very pleased that the chamber has supported this motion today. We simply wanted Senator Hanson to withdraw her racially charged remarks and to apologise to Senator Faruqi for them.</para>
<para>Instead of that, we heard a repetition of those remarks, and I'm very pleased, President, that you now will be giving further consideration to the consequences of Senator Hanson refusing to abide by your direction to withdraw those remarks, which, as you correctly ruled, were in breach of the standing orders and which are also in breach of those codes of conduct. It's important for us to uphold those standards. We're senators in this place, we're privileged, and we could have ignored that. But you know who can't ignore racism and racial slurs? The millions of Australians that face that on the streets and in their workplaces every single day. It is our obligation to call out that behaviour as unacceptable in this workplace and to set the standard for every other sphere of society. We've just seen an incredibly divisive and racially charged referendum, and people's hearts are broken. Let us now please recommit to holding that standard of not permitting racially divisive speech or religious discrimination in this chamber.</para>
<para>We won't walk past this conduct. We will call out this conduct every time it occurs, and until such time as we have the independent enforcement body which will be charged with making sure that these behaviour standards are in fact made real consequences flow, until such time as that independent parliamentary standards commission is finally established—and I might add there are some people in this place who have been dragging the chain on that, and they need to stop dragging the chain on that—until that independent enforcement body is established, we will call this out every single time. Thank you, President, for taking under advisement the further actions and the consequences that should flow for Senator Hanson.</para>
<para>I might add that the draft behaviour standards for Commonwealth workplaces will soon also be enforceable, and there will be a prohibition on racial, religious, sex and gender discrimination that will apply in all Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces. It is not just this chamber where these standards need to be upheld. The commitment that we have made, thanks to the excellent work of former Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins, is that the standard in all Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces will be one that is free from discrimination. I look forward to the enforcement of those codes. I remind all in this chamber that we have committed to uphold those behaviour standards and those codes of conduct, and we will call out conduct that is racially charged, that is divisive and that is utterly inappropriate.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I have an issue with truth.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Lambie, this is not a free-ranging debate.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Lambie</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, we're talking about discrimination, but—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, Senator Lambie. When you resume your seat, I'll tell you where we're up to. Senator Waters sought leave from the chamber to give a three-minute statement. That was denied. Senator Waters then sought an urgency motion. There was some debate on that. That motion was put and carried. That allows Senator Waters to make her three-minute statement, which she has done, so unless you are seeking leave or there's a point of order, there's no opportunity for you to speak.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Lambie</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm sorry, Madam President, it's a point of order. I was just a little concerned about an accusation that I was watching—through the chair—from you, Senator Birmingham. I'm not sure if this was meant, but you said, in relation to the motion moved by you and Senator Wong talking about racial discrimination, 'Particularly to those at that end of the chamber'. Last I checked, this is referring to us, so I would ask you if you could go back and reflect on your words and what was said and whether or not you should come in and apologise.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Whish-Wilson</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Or just be honest enough to name who you mean.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Lambie, Senator Birmingham did not make a direct reference to any particular senator. He's heard what you've said. It's up to him, but he has not breached any standing orders. Before we go to question time, I want to make clear to the chamber what I will do. I will go back and look at the original contribution. As I indicated to the Senate, I wasn't in the chair when those original contributions were made. I will reflect on that. I will also reflect on today's contribution. As the Senate is aware, I have also asked or requested that Senator Hanson withdraw her remarks against Senator Faruqi. She's refused to do that, so I am using my discretion and Senator Hanson will not be heard until I come back to the chamber and give a further direction.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Roberts</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A point of clarification, please, President. When you scrutinise what Senator Hanson said yesterday, I presume you'll do it in the light of the accusation that Senator Waters has falsely made—that it was racist. If you're looking for a racist comment—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Roberts, you are now on a debating point. I have undertaken to review all of that debate and the debate today. We're now moving to question time.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>52</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Farrell. Minister, how is the government lowering aggregate demand in the economy?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Hume, for your question.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ayres</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The budget surplus is a start.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I couldn't have said it any better, Senator. I will take that interjection. Let's go back in time a little bit. I know you hate this, but we inherited a $1 trillion debt. What did we do? Not only did we inherit a $1 trillion debt—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Birmingham</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, you didn't!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We did, Senator Birmingham. I know you don't like it. I know you don't like us talking about your incompetent economic management, but not only did we inherit a $1 trillion debt but we inherited a $70 billion deficit. Senator Hume, what we did—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Farrell, direct your comments to the chair.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>She asked the question, with respect.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>But you direct your comments to me.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And she'll ask me some supplementary questions, and she won't have listened to my answer. I just want to make sure that when I give the answer to this question she—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Birmingham, a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Birmingham</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>President, on direct relevance. This minister does it time and time again. He runs the clock down with endless waffle and diversionary tactics. He's had more than three—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Your point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Birmingham</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The point of order is on direct relevance.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He's had more than three-quarters of the allocated time, and the words 'aggregate demand' haven't passed his lips at all. Does he even know what it is?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Birmingham. I would remind senators, as I did yesterday, that if there are interjections the minister is entitled to take those into consideration. I will remind him of the question, Senator Birmingham, but if there aren't interjections then we can focus on the question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, President, for that clarification. I answered your question in the very first answer I gave. Just because you don't—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Hume</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>President, I raise a point of order and a clarification. Economist Chris Richardson said that the only people who would use the phrase 'a billion dollars worth of debt' are either ignorant or making a political point. My question, President, is: which one?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hume, resume your seat. I would remind senators that, if you are standing on a point of order, make sure it is a point of order and not a debating point. Minister Farrell.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you. Is that Senator Hume's first supplementary question? <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McGrath, there's one of your own senators—order!—on her feet, waiting to ask her first supplementary. Thank you, Senator Hume.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, the cost of food has gone up by 8.2 per cent over the last 15 months. What is the Albanese government doing to stop supermarket bills going up and up?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We're putting downward pressure on inflation. One way we do that is to provide a surplus. We've done that this year.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Hume</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You didn't provide a surplus.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Credit where credit is due, Senator.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cash</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>To the resource companies of Australia!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash, I know you don't like it that, for the first time in 15 years, a federal government has produced a surplus. But just producing that surplus itself puts downward pressure on.</para>
<para>Now, what have we done about trying to help families who are struggling? These families are struggling with increases food prices—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGrath</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You've done nothing!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We're reducing the cost of child care. We're reducing the cost of going— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hume, your second supplementary.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can the minister explain how the Albanese Labor government's additional $188 billion in spending is putting downward pressure on inflation, rather than upward?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Hume for her second supplementary question. I note that the opposition didn't support any of the moves that this government—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Carol Brown</name>
    <name.id>F49</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Shame!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, it is a shame, Senator Brown. They didn't support any of the measures that this government proposed to put downward pressure on inflation. They didn't support the reductions in childcare costs. They didn't support the measures to cap electricity prices. They're not supporting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Birmingham</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You're not really helping with the supermarket bills!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, what are we doing? For the first time we've had a government that's interested in pushing up wages. Remember what Mathias Cormann— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and the Minister for Homelessness, Senator Farrell. The Albanese government is delivering on its wide-reaching housing agenda to boost housing supply for Australians who need it most. Can the minister update the Senate on the work the government is doing to deliver on its ambitious housing reform to improve the accessibility and affordability of housing for Australians?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Walsh. I know she has a great interest in this issue of housing and homelessness.</para>
<para>The Albanese government's housing reforms are ambitious. After a decade—</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes—after a decade of inaction they have to be! They need to be! We're taking action to provide support for all Australians looking for a place to call home—homebuyers, renters and those looking for a safe space to spend the night. With every step of our agenda, we're improving access to safe and affordable homes for Australians through measures which include: the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund; the $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator; the $2 billion in additional financing for community housing providers; a $1.7 billion one-year extension to the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement; and the boost to Commonwealth rent assistance. We're already seeking homes under construction, thanks to the $575 million we unlocked from the National Housing Infrastructure Facility, and we have recently committed a further $1 billion to this facility to deliver even more homes. Just last week, the Albanese government, through Housing Australia, announced its largest investment ever, providing more than $500 million in federal government support to build 1,370 new homes in Melbourne.</para>
<para>This is what a government that's working for Australia looks like—one that's working for renters and working for homeowners. It's working so much more so that Australians can have a safe and affordable place to call home.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Walsh, your first supplementary.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the minister for his answer. It is encouraging to hear that the government is investing in a much-needed boost to the supply of social and affordable rental housing. Is the minister able to provide an update to the Senate on what the Albanese government is doing to strengthen renters' rights?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Walsh for her first supplementary question. Yes, I can, Senator Walsh. We were elected with an ambitious housing agenda, and it's been complemented by the significant steps that we are taking to strengthen renters' rights. Work by the states on a better deal for renters is underway, improving rental regulations through nine agreed actions to improve conditions for renters. We have boosted Commonwealth rent assistance with the largest increase in 30 years. Alongside our reforms to increase the supply of new social and affordable rental homes, these measures will make a real difference to the lives of renters right across Australia, including the more than 680,000 renters in Senator Walsh's home state of Victoria. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Walsh, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the minister for providing that update. In addition to boosting the supply of housing and supporting those who are renting a home, what is the Albanese government doing to support more Australians into homeownership?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Walsh for her second supplementary question. The Albanese government is not just boosting the supply of new homes; we're also helping people—Australians—buy their first homes. Our first home buyer guarantee has now helped more than 73,000 Australians into their first home, including more than 10,000 in regions through the regional first home buyer guarantee. Senator Walsh, this includes more than 15,600 new homeowners across your state of Victoria helped into their homes by the home guarantee system. Our expanded home guarantees are good for young people, good for essential workers and good for any Australian looking to buy their first home.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Farrell. Minister, what does the Albanese Labor government define as mortgage stress?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator McGrath, for your question. This government understands the pressure that ordinary working Australians are under in terms of their mortgage, and that's especially so since the decision of the independent Reserve Bank to increase interest rates by 25 basis points yesterday. What this government is trying to do is to help those people out by putting downward pressure on interest rates. I can only say it so many times, Senator McGrath, but the reality is that the fact that we were able to deliver the first budget surplus in 15 years is one of the ways in which we are trying to help—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Farrell, resume your seat. Senator McGrath, a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGrath</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's on direct relevance. The question was very specifically about how the Albanese Labor government defines mortgage stress. The minister has not gone anywhere near the definition of mortgage stress. I'd ask you to draw him back to the question.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will draw the minister to the question. Thank you, Senator McGrath.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, I will go there, because we do understand that Australians have—</para>
<para>Senator Ruston interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ruston, those constant interjections are disorderly. I just had Senator McGrath on his feet asking me to direct the minister to the question, which I did do. But you know that your interjections can also be something the minister responds to. So you can't have it both ways, and I've asked you to discontinue interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Birmingham</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>She's giving you some time, Don!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>With all due respect, Senator Birmingham, I don't need time. I understand—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cash</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What percentage of your income to do you spend on your mortgage?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You keep—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I do answer your questions. You may not like the way I answer your questions.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Order across the chamber!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash, I just called order. That includes you. Senator Birmingham, on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Birmingham</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise on a point of order on direct relevance. Yes, interjections may occur in the chamber. I, as a minister, answered plenty of questions with interjections occurring across the chamber. You still answer the question. If it would help the minister, perhaps he can read the highlighted words from Wayne Swan, 'Mortgage stress is when household are paying more than 30 per cent of their income.' Try reading it out, Don.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Birmingham, stunts are also out of order. I have directed the minister to the question. Senator Birmingham, I'm responding to your point of order. What you did as a minister was your choice. If there are interjections, ministers can choose to ignore them, as obviously you did, or they can choose to answer them. The chamber nevertheless should be listening in silence. Senator O'Neill.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'Neill</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>President, just in light of the way in which the Senate has—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator, why are you on your feet?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'Neill</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise on a point of order because there's been debate about standards today. My point of order goes to the standard of making a speech about standards and then physically throwing a document across the table. It's inappropriate. The senator should apologise.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order across the chamber! Senator O'Neill, you are not running this chamber; I am. I have addressed that issue. There was not a point of order there. I'm going back to Senator Farrell and ask him to direct his answer to the question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If you want to answer your own questions then why bother to ask me the questions?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McGrath, a first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, how many Australian households are currently experiencing mortgage stress and how many more will as a result of yet another interest rate increase under Labor?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator McGrath for his first supplementary question. Look, I don't think I can make it any clearer than I have already made it. We understand that—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Scarr</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You're incapable.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator Scarr, I would ask you to withdraw that personal reflection.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Scarr</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Farrell, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I actually didn't hear it but thank you for—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKenzie</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Turn up your hearing aids.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Oh, give us a break. Look, we do understand the pressure that ordinary Australians are under as a result of these rising interest rates. If you hadn't mismanaged the economy so badly, so badly, under the nine years that you were part of the former—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McGrath, on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGrath</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise on a point of order on direct relevance. The question was very tightly written. It goes to how many households are currently experiencing mortgage stress. It's asking for a number. The minister is not going near the question. I ask you to direct him back to the question, please.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will direct the minister to the question. Minister.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para> Well, I can only reiterate time and time again we understand the problem of higher interest rates. We understand the problem. We're seeking to do things in the economy that we have control of— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McGrath, a second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Does the Albanese Labor government accept responsibility for increasing mortgage stress, and will it apologise to those Australian households?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think it's worthwhile to note that, of course, the Reserve Bank is an independent organisation in this country. It was an independent organisation when you were in government, and it's an independent organisation when we are in government, and we aren't proposing to change that situation. The decisions that they make are the decisions of an independent organisation. They are not in the control—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McGrath?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGrath</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm reluctant to do this, but I raise a point of order on direct relevance. The question once again was very tightly written and asked whether the government accepted responsibility and whether it would apologise. I ask if you could direct the minister back to answering the question, particularly in relation to the apology.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I think in that regard the minister is being directly relevant, because he's made reference to other bodies that are responsible.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Birmingham</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On this occasion the answer does speak volumes: they accept no responsibility.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Birmingham!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm not sure what's got into Senator Birmingham today, but he is now interrupting constantly in respect of every answer that I give. I don't know— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Domestic and Family Violence</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. The murders of five women in just 10 days are a tragic reminder that domestic, family and sexual violence remains a national crisis. It's now 46 women who've been killed by violence in 2023—records kept not by the government, as I believe they should be and as we do for the road toll, but by a volunteer organisation called Counting Dead Women. What has been made clear from the tragedies of the past few weeks is that the current approach is not working. Will the government convene a National Cabinet meeting to coordinate a national response to combat domestic, family and sexual violence? If so, will you champion in National Cabinet, and commit to funding, a national real-time toll of women killed by violence?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Waters for her question. Domestic violence is a serious issue in this country. This government understands just how important that issue is, particularly for women in this country. Regrettably, there are no easy solutions to the problem, but this government is obviously happy to look at any measures that we can do that we believe can successfully reduce the incidence of domestic violence in this country. This government has been doing a range of things in this space, and we will continue to focus on the issue. We want to eliminate domestic violence from our society. I know that's a big call, but we want to make progress on the issue. We'll do whatever we can to reduce the incidence of domestic violence, and we're happy to work with you, Senator Waters, and anybody in this place to progress the issue of reducing domestic violence.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Waters, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The women's safety sector has long called for $1 billion a year in funding for frontline support services to meet demand and to ensure that everyone who seeks help fleeing violence can get it. In budget estimates this year, the department confirmed that the government is spending half of that amount over the forward estimates. Why is the government only providing half of what the sector has repeatedly called for, when so many women are being murdered?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Waters for her first supplementary question. The safety of women and children experiencing family and domestic and sexual violence is a priority of the Albanese government. Family and domestic violence does destroy lives—and one life lost is one life too many—and we want it to end. I don't think you're accurately reflecting the spending of this government with respect to this issue. In just our first two budgets—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Waters?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Waters</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Reluctantly, on a point of order: the department confirmed that the spending was less than half of the one billion dollars the sector has asked for.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Waters, but that is a debating point.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In just our first two budgets, we've made a record investment of $2.3 billion in women's safety, which is currently being delivered to services and support. We believe that's making a tangible difference to women and children experiencing violence now, but we'll also support the critically important work of preventing violence before it starts.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Waters, your second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Following the murder of Lilie James, the former St Andrews school principal referred to the man who brutally murdered her as 'an absolute delight'. We cannot keep framing men who kill women as good blokes who just snapped. What are the men in this government doing to transform harmful social norms and to stamp out the sexism and misogyny that breed inequality and violence against women?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I completely reject any suggestion of links between men in this place and what the person you referred to might have said. I think all of my male colleagues understand just what a blight on society domestic violence is and support all of the measures the government is taking to try and address this issue. In my previous answer, I mentioned the $2.3 billion that we're spending in this space to try and end domestic violence before it begins. I'm sure I speak for every single man in the Senate and, for that matter, every single man in the House of Representatives on the Labor side when I say we completely reject domestic violence, and we will do whatever it takes— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'NEILL</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Senator Watt. The Albanese government was elected on the promise of cleaning up the mess of a decade of the Liberal-National coalition's waste, rorts and chaos. Having been left with one trillion dollars in debt, why is the independent review of the $120 billion infrastructure investment pipeline necessary?</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm glad the opposition are interested in this because I'm going to give them a few facts. By now, all Australians are familiar with the mess that was left behind after a decade of Liberal-National government. As Senator O'Neill has mentioned, they created a trillion dollars in debt, with nothing to show for it. The coalition left behind a pipeline of infrastructure projects without adequate funding or resources and, in many cases, without real benefits to the public.</para>
<para>Those opposite announced projects without even checking if they were priorities for the states first. This resulted in these projects being stalled for years or the costs continuing to blow out. Of course, what we learnt about the Liberals and Nationals is that they didn't care if there was funding to deliver a project and they didn't care if there was skilled labour available to deliver a project. As long as a project looked good on a colour coded spreadsheet, that was enough for the opposition.</para>
<para>Unlike the opposition, we commissioned an independent review because we are committed to delivering an infrastructure program that can actually be paid for and delivered. It's important to note that the Albanese government will maintain the $120 billion dedicated towards the infrastructure program. All projects that are underway and all the election commitments of our government are being honoured and will be honoured. But we need to be realistic about the Liberal and National parties' program. With its colour coded projects, preferably royal blue and—what kind of green would it be?—bottle green for National Party projects, the coalition's program blew out by $33 billion. There were $33 billion of cost overruns, and the program simply cannot be delivered in its current form.</para>
<para>Under the former government the number of infrastructure projects in the pipeline blew out from nearly 150 to 800. What a shame the former government's appetite for announcing projects wasn't matched with a commitment to deliver. We will deliver, and we will get this program working. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator O'Neill, first supplementary?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'NEILL</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the May budget the Albanese government delivered a budget surplus for the first time in 15 years. What is the Albanese government doing to deliver on meaningful infrastructure projects while continuing to put downward pressure on inflation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Albanese government's No. 1 priority remains addressing the worldwide inflation and cost-of-living challenge. We have taken a number of steps since being elected. We have a targeted and comprehensive $23 billion 10-point plan to help address the cost-of-living pressures in our economy, including electricity bill relief, which was voted against by the opposition, cheaper child care, which was opposed by the opposition, cheaper medicines, which was repeatedly voted against by the opposition, and increased rent assistance, which was opposed by the opposition. We've done all these things at the same time as we've delivered the first budget surplus in 15 years, taking inflationary pressure out of the economy. We have seen wages grow at around the fastest rate in over a decade and over 561,000 jobs created since we have come to office. We are now also managing the infrastructure program to reduce inflationary pressure.</para>
<para>It's lucky that someone is concerned about inflation because I saw today the shadow finance minister, Senator Hume, describing inflation at 1.2 per cent as 'out of control', and she was reminded that inflation was almost twice that in the last quarter of the former government that she was part of it. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order across the chamber! Senator Hume, order! Senator Henderson! Senator Brown! Minister Watt, I also remind you that when I call you that time is up, I expect you to sit down. Senator O'Neill, second supplementary?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'NEILL</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister Watt, for that comprehensive and factually accurate answer. Why is the Albanese government confident that this is the right approach to keeping downward pressure on inflation and managing the infrastructure pipeline?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I said, the Albanese government has a clear plan for managing inflation and cost-of-living pressures with budget discipline recording the first surplus in 15 years. We also have a plan for cost-of-living relief and managing our infrastructure pipeline. But in contrast to the government's clear plan, those opposite can't even agree on whether we should spend more or less. Yesterday we had Senator Scarr in question time begging and demanding us to spend less money in the economy, while at the same time we had Senator McKenzie out there issuing press releases demanding more infrastructure spending. More spending over there, less over here: is it a Liberals versus Nationals thing, or are you just utterly confused about what to do about inflation in the economy? Senator Birmingham has called for 'proper spending discipline' to avoid adding to inflation, but Mr Dutton, the Leader of the Opposition, wants to reinstate superannuation tax concessions for high-income earners and wants to build nuclear reactors everywhere around the country with more spending. Make up your minds! Are you for more spending or less spending? We are for managing inflation and for managing cost-of-living relief. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<para>Government senators interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order!</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hume, I've called you a number of times. I would invite you at another time during the week to make a contribution but not at question time.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Immigration</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Senator Watt. With Labor embarking on the largest immigration program in Australian history, bringing in more than 500,000 people this year alone, more and more economists are warning these numbers are driving inflation and hurting everyday Australian families. Following yesterday's 12th interest rate rise since Labor was elected, when will the government acknowledge they are completely wrong about high immigration and cut the numbers to sustainable levels?</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKenzie and Senator Dean Smith!</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Smith, that's most unlike you! I'm very disappointed in you! I'm very disappointed. Thank you for the question, Senator Roberts. I hear, again, in response to your question, Senator McKenzie demanding more spending for infrastructure. So I guess we're back to, 'Spend more in the economy, and drive up inflation!' That's where the opposition was at today—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Rennick's jumping up and saying no. The Liberals disagree. Okay!</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts, I am going to direct the minister to your question, and I will remind those in here that the crossbenchers are entitled to be heard in silence and are entitled to have their questions answered. They get less time than others in this place. I would expect everyone to be sitting in respectful silence. Minister Watt, I refer you to Senator Roberts' question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you. Senator Roberts, I think I answered a very similar question from you the other day. I did acknowledge that Australia's migration system, after 10 years of Liberal and National government, mainly overseen by the now opposition leader, Mr Dutton, is in utter    disarray. We have acknowledged that. I know that the minister—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Roberts</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On relevance—I'm asking when he will cut the numbers to sustainable levels.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Roberts. I will remind the minister of your question. Minister Watt.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Roberts. It is important to put this in context, and we have acknowledged that the migration system that we inherited, overseen largely by Mr Dutton, the now opposition leader, is a mess. It is a completely broken system. We have already taken a number of measures—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Roberts</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>When will they acknowledge they are completely wrong about high immigration and cut the numbers to sustainable levels? That's simple.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I believe the minister is going to your question, and I will continue to listen carefully. Minister Watt.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We have taken a number of measures already since being elected to fix the mess of the broken migration system we inherited. For example, this government has ended the Pandemic Event visa, which was being abused in some cases—in many cases. We have changed the previously unlimited working hours that were available for international students, a system that was engineered by the former government, and we've also made changes to work exemptions for working holiday visa holders. We've also increase the temporary skilled migration income threshold from $53,900 to $70,000, and that is the first increase in a decade.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Roberts</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>When will he deal with cutting the high numbers?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Roberts, I think he's being relevant to your question. Thank you, Minister.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Watt</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Roberts, it's up to you to choose whether you want to listen to my answer or not. But I've already outlined a number of measures that we have taken to fix the migration system, thoroughly broken, overseen by Mr Dutton, and to try to put in place a more manageable migration system and more manageable immigration numbers. We are conscious that this is an issue that needs to be addressed, and we'll keep working on it. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Roberts, your first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Economic experts have, for many months, been calling for lower immigration levels to reduce the high demand causing the housing and rental crisis forcing Australian families into homelessness and poverty. Given that Labor's housing policy won't have any impact for five years, when will Labor admit its record immigration is the primary cause of the housing and rental crisis and act to lower immigration and allow Australians to put a roof over their heads, reduce rental costs and possibly own their own home?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para> (—) (): Thank you, Senator Roberts. As I say, I've already indicated a number of steps that the government has taken to make our migration system more manageable and to fix the mess that we inherited from the former government. I know that you're trying to draw a link between migration numbers and housing pressures. It would have been nice if, just once, we could have had One Nation's support for any of the housing measures that this government has put in place. We know, of course, that you voted with the coalition to oppose our $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, which won't take five years to start building houses. Senator Farrell has already talked today, in answering a question, about the money that is already starting to flow to build homes under that program, which One Nation voted against, along with the coalition. So, if you're serious about wanting to have more housing in place for Australians, maybe, the next time we put up something about building more homes for Australians, then you might care to actually back it. We've also forwarded significant funds, billions of dollars, to the states and territories to get to building homes right now. That's the source. That's the way we fix the housing crisis. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Roberts, your second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The world has been treated to footage of public demonstrations supporting Islamic terrorism at famous landmarks in Australia, as well as in this very chamber, a result of poor immigration control which has allowed radical, violent and extremist ideology to be imported here. Minister, when will Labor admit that immigration is out of control and act to ensure the safety and security of Australia by banning and deporting people who support Islamic terrorism?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Roberts, I utterly reject the suggestion in your question that migrants are terrorists. I utterly reject that. You have sought to describe migrants as 'Islamic terrorists', and that is unjust and unfair.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Roberts</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>President, I have a point of order about impugning what I said. I did not say that migrants are terrorists. I said that Islamic extremists are terrorists.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Roberts, the minister is being relevant to your question. I will continue to listen carefully.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Order across the chamber! Minister Watt.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will let anyone go back and have a look at your question, Senator Roberts, and I think the implication is very clear about what you're trying to say and what you're trying to do. But this government, as well as fixing the migration system—that was utterly broken under Mr Dutton and the opposition—have also made very clear that we're committed to keeping the community safe from all forms of terrorism and violent extremism.</para>
<para>The government's focus is on addressing significant and emerging threats, such as the rise of nationalist and racist violent extremism, and the increase in radicalisation of young people. The government keeps security laws under review in light of evolving threats, including those posed by right-wing extremists, and is committed to ensuring our laws remain appropriate and effective. We've introduced a comprehensive package of reforms to protect the community from those who seek to spread hate, whoever they may be. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tasmania: Aquaculture Industry</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment. Can the minister tell the Senate how many jobs depend on aquaculture on Tasmania's West Coast, and how many jobs would be lost if Minister Plibersek proceeds with her threats to pause or stop salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Colbeck. I'm very conscious, of course, as the minister for agriculture and fisheries, of the issues that Senator Colbeck is referring to. I've been working very closely with Minister Plibersek around the issues relating to salmon farming on the West Coast of Tasmania and, of course, ensuring that the views and concerns of the salmon industry and the many people who work for it are considered in any government decision-making.</para>
<para>I don't quite agree with the characterisation of Minister Plibersek's actions that you have put forward, Senator Colbeck. I don't consider that she has made threats to close down the industry. What she is actually doing at the moment is observing a legal process. There are a number of groups who have asked her—and made a formal application—to reconsider various environmental approvals that have previously been provided. She has a legal obligation to consider that request, and that is what she is doing at the moment.</para>
<para>What you will also find is that Minister Plibersek and our government have actually provided significant amounts of funding—in the millions of dollars—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>At Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Colbeck?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Colbeck</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, President, I have a point of order on direct relevance. I did ask the minister to advise on the number of jobs at threat based on Minister Plibersek's threats. They are genuine threats that were made in a letter from the minister to the Tasmanian Premier this week.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Colbeck, the minister is being relevant to your question. Minister Watt.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, President, and thank you, Senator Colbeck. I have already acknowledged that there are significant numbers of workers in the salmon industry on the West Coast of Tasmania, as there are across Tasmania as a whole. The interests of those workers and the companies they work for are something in the forefront of the government's mind. The reality is that Minister Plibersek has now received an application from a number of groups to reconsider those environmental approvals. It wouldn't matter whether it were a Labor minister or a Liberal minister or a National Party minister; they are legally obliged to consider that request and that is what Minister Plibersek is considering.</para>
<para>What I was attempting to say is that the government has already provided funding to support the salmon industry and reduce the oxygen levels in Macquarie Harbour.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Colbeck, your first supplementary.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, given your answer, will you guarantee that not a single job will be lost on the west coast as a result of any decision taken by the Minister for the Environment and Water relating to salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator Colbeck. Senator Colbeck would remember from his time as a minister that ministers don't provide guarantees of the sort that he is requiring. I can remember many occasions when we attempted to get guarantees from ministers, including Senator Colbeck, on various situations, and those guarantees weren't made and, of course, can't be made. But what I can guarantee is that the Albanese government is a strong supporter of the salmon industry in Tasmania, and its backing that up not just with words but with funding.</para>
<para>Minister Plibersek has announced $2.1 million in Australian government funding to establish a captive breeding program to help the maugean skate—something that the salmon industry requested that we do. We've also, through the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation and the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, partnered with industry in a new initiative worth up to $6 million to stimulate dissolved oxygen levels in Macquarie Harbour. So we are taking action to work with the industry around the environmental issues that have been raised.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Colbeck, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Salmon workers in Tasmania will be pleased to know there are no guarantees. Minister, Christmas is approaching, and Australians are now further engulfed in Labor's cost-of-living crisis, yet Minister Plibersek is creating even more anxiety for Tasmanians with her inability to provide certainty to the thousands of workers collectively employed in the salmon industry in Tasmania, the MMG mine and the forestry sector. Minister, why will you not give a—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Hanson-Young</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Just shut it down!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para> and I'll take the interjection from the Greens, who just want to close the industry down—guarantee to their jobs. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para> (—) (): As I said, Senator Colbeck, it might seem strange, but ministers are required to follow the law. I know that Scott Morrison, when he was the Prime Minister, went and created new portfolios for himself and found ways around the law, but, Senator Colbeck, I actually think you're a decent man and I know that as the minister you would have followed the law. If these applications had been made to you as a minister then you would have considered them in the way the law requires. That's what's going on at the moment. But the government's support for the salmon industry can be seen not just from those investments that I've already mentioned: the $2.1 million to create a captive breeding program and the money that we're providing through the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation around dissolved oxygen levels. But we're actually an active partner in a national recovery team for the maugean skate, which is about protecting that species but also attempting to keep the salmon industry going. So our credentials are very strong on this, and we'll keep working on it. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Mental Health</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator TYRRELL</name>
    <name.id>300639</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Farrell. We're currently living through a mental healthcare crisis, with closed books and long waitlists. The crisis is even more acute in rural and regional Australia. Last year, Tasmanians were twice as likely as their mainland counterparts to claim the Medicare rebate for an initial psychiatry appointment via telehealth. Tasmanians rely on telehealth to see a psychiatrist more than people in any other state or territory. Does the minister agree that telehealth services are vitally important in helping manage the current healthcare crisis, especially for people in regional areas like Tasmania?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Tyrrell, for your question. As a person who used telehealth quite a few times during the course of the COVID crisis, I know it was a terrific service. As you know from some of my earlier comments today, Senator Tyrrell, the Albanese government is committed to strengthening Medicare and to providing equitable access to ensure all Australians receive the care that they need, and that is especially the case in respect of the issue that you've raised, which is mental health. In the recent budget the Albanese government delivered $586.9 million to mental health, and this funding will extend critical services and address urgent gaps and workforce shortages.</para>
<para>There's a whole range of issues there in relation to access to mental health. An independent evaluation by the University of Melbourne found that the additional psychology sessions as part of the COVID Better Access package did not expand access to mental health support and that the number of new patients accessing a psychology service declined.</para>
<para>The Albanese government is committed to delivering equitable access to mental health support for all Australians, and that of course includes people in your home state of Tasmania, Senator Tyrrell. The additional Better Access sessions that were put in place temporarily during COVID exacerbated— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Tyrrell, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator TYRRELL</name>
    <name.id>300639</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Medicare Benefits Schedule Review Advisory Committee is recommending stopping Medicare rebates for initial consults with a specialist via telehealth, including for psychiatry. What does the government have to say to Australians who will be forced to choose between $1,000 out of pocket to get immediate care via telehealth or waiting over 12 months to see someone face to face just so they can get the rebate? I hear that the mainland numbers went down, but Tasmanian numbers went up.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Tyrrell for her first supplementary question. I think the fact of the matter is that this government is doing a whole range of things to try and rebuild the Medicare system, which was left in a terrible state as a result of the former government.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ruston</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>She's asking about telehealth—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ruston!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ruston, I am answering the question. I'm talking about—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ruston</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Telehealth, telehealth.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston, I called you. I expect you to come to order and stop being disrespectful. Minister Farrell, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you. I know why Senator Ruston is so embarrassed about the former government's approach to—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Farrell, I will bring you back to Senator Tyrrell's question.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ruston! Minister Farrell, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We are rebuilding Medicare in this country. We continue to— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Tyrrell, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator TYRRELL</name>
    <name.id>300639</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists and the Australian Medical Association are against this recommendation. Will the government adopt the MRAC recommendation or instead listen to the concerns of psychiatrists and doctors, who strongly oppose the removal of the vital service?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Tyrrell for her second supplementary question. In my experience, we have a very fine minister in Minister Butler, a minister from South Australia, who does listen to experts but, more importantly, who does listen to the community. What the community is telling Minister Butler is that they want us to rebuild the Medicare system. That's what this government is doing. So, to the extent that any people that you're referring to want to contribute to rebuilding the Medicare system, of course I'm absolutely certain that Minister Butler will be listening to them.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BILYK</name>
    <name.id>HZB</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister For Health, Senator Farrell. Minister, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme provides all Australians with access to affordable, essential prescription medicines. How is the Albanese government helping Australians to access cheaper medicines, including in my home state of Tasmania?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Bilyk—two consecutive questions from Tasmanian senators about health in that great state. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is a vital lifeline to affordable medicines for millions of Australians. Labor introduced the scheme and will continue to support it.</para>
<para>In July 2020, we lowered the PBS safety net threshold by 25 per cent. This means pensioners and other concession card holders will pay just $5 a week, on average, for all of their yearly PBS medicines. In the first six months of 2023, 940,000 concession card holders reached that threshold, meaning that they won't pay a single cent for their PBS medicines for the rest of the year.</para>
<para>In fact, Australians have saved $180 million on more than $16 million of cheaper prescriptions over the period January to September 2023. In your home state of Tasmania, Senator Bilyk, $4 million has been saved on 337,000 cheaper scripts. In the ACT, $4.5 million has been saved on 400,000 cheaper scripts. In New South Wales, $56 million has been saved on five million cheaper scripts. In the Northern Territory, $1 million has been saved on 100,000 cheaper scripts. In Queensland, $35 million has been saved on $3 million worth of cheaper scripts. In Victoria, $46 million has been saved on four million cheaper scripts. In my home state of South Australia, $12 million has been saved on one million cheaper scripts. Unlike those opposite, Labor believes in affordable medicine and easing the cost-of-living pressures. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Bilyk, first supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BILYK</name>
    <name.id>HZB</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you for that answer, Minister. It's estimated that more than 480,000 Australians are afflicted with heart failure, with around 60,000 new diagnoses made every year. The Albanese government recently listed the drug Jardiance on the PBS. How will listing this medicine on the PBS impact on the lives of Australians with chronic heart failure?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Bilyk for her first supplementary question. Heart failure is a progressive chronic disease where the heart muscle struggles to provide enough blood around the body. This leaves people fatigued, short of breath and at increased risk of being hospitalised and dying. Until now, treatment options have been extremely limited, but on 1 November a new medicine, Jardiance, was added to the PBS, with around 98,000 Australians expected to benefit. Together with standard care, this new treatment is expected to reduce the risk of hospitalisation for heart failure and cardiovascular death. Concession patients will pay just $7.30, and general patients $30, for this new treatment. This is all part of our government's commitment to making medicines cheaper.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Bilyk, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BILYK</name>
    <name.id>HZB</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Once again, thank you for that answer, Minister. Around 20,000 Australian women are diagnosed with breast cancer each year. Recently, the Albanese government listed Enhertu on the PBS. How will listing this drug on the PBS help Australian women living with breast cancer?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Bilyk for her second supplementary question. Around 20,000 Australian women are diagnosed with breast cancer each year. Around one in five of these women are diagnosed with metastatic cancer, an aggressive form of cancer. On 1 November, the government listed a new drug, Enhertu, on the PBS to treat patients who have been diagnosed with metastatic cancer. Around 580 Australians are expected to benefit from this listing each year—Australians who, without a subsidy, might pay more than $425,000 per course for the treatment. The PBS listing means that eligible patients will pay a maximum of $30 per script or just $7.30 with a concession card. The listing of— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aged Care</title>
          <page.no>63</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care, Senator Farrell. It was reported this week that a further 16 residential aged-care facilities have been forced to close over the last four months. This means that at least 47 aged-care facilities have shut down since September last year as a result of the rigid requirements for staffing that your government has imposed on the sector amid a serious workforce crisis.</para>
<para>Minister, how many more aged-care facilities have to close down with residents forced out of their homes before the Albanese government takes action to support the sector, including by expanding the exemption criteria for these staffing requirements?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Ruston for her question. I start by completely rejecting the proposition that you're suggesting that this government is not doing anything in respect of aged care. Like so many issues that this government inherited from the previous government—and Senator Colbeck is looking very sad over there because you'll remember all of this, Senator Colbeck, the neglect. What was the one word that we remembered from your period in government? It's the word 'neglect' in this space. We are putting dignity and respect at the centre of aged care for both residents and workers. Can I say this to you, Senator Ruston? One of the first acts—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston, on a point of order?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ruston</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm seeking a point of clarification as to whether the minister just referred to me as 'dear Senator Ruston'.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I have no idea, Senator Ruston, but I will certainly ask him to withdraw.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Polley</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You've changed sides, Jonno!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>But before I do that, Senator Polley, I expect there to be silence in the chamber. Minister, I invite you to withdraw if you made that comment.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't recall calling Senator Ruston 'dear'. If I did, it must have been a mispronunciation.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Farrell, if you made the comment, it's best to withdraw.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will withdraw if that's what I said. I'm very happy not to call Senator Ruston 'dear' anymore, so I withdraw. Can I put this to you, Senator Ruston? The Albanese government has already invested $11.3 billion for 15 per cent award wage increases for aged-care workers, the largest-ever increase for aged-care workers.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ruston, please ask your first supplementary.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, research has found that Australia is facing a shortfall of 16,000 registered nurses and 25,000 allied health workers in the aged-care sector by 2033. This comes at a time when your government has brought forward additional requirements for aged-care staffing. Can you guarantee that no more aged-care homes will be forced to close as a result of your government's actions?</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order across the chamber, particularly on my right. If you have so much to say, find a space elsewhere on the Senate timetable. Minister Farrell.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Ruston for her first supplementary question. You have got a cheek, Senator Ruston, for asking that question. When did these shortages start? They started under your government, and, like so many things that we've inherited from the former government, we are left with the problem of fixing it up. One way we can fix this problem is by increasing the status of work in this very important area.</para>
<para>How have we done that? Well, we've said to the workers in this industry, 'We're going to give you a wage rise.' Hopefully, that will start the process of restoring the status of workers in this industry and giving them a fair deal.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ruston, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's also been reported this week that significant challenges faced by the sector under your government have resulted in an overall reduction in aged-care beds of 325 over the last four months. This is happening at a time when demand for aged care is expected to increase, with the minister herself consistently warning that the boomers are coming. Minister, can you guarantee that aged-care places will not continue to decrease under your government?</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I call the minister, I would ask for silence in the chamber.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKenzie, I can't be the only boomer in this room. Surely there must be some other boomers still around the place. But this government is not just looking after boomers in aged care. We're going to be a government for so long that we'll even be looking after the Gen Zs and the millennials, and we are going to restore this industry. On that note, I would request that further questions be put on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>64</page.no>
        <type>ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Question No. 1917</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Pursuant to standing order 74(5), I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer for an explanation as to why an answer has not been provided to question No. 1917 asked on 11 April—yes, 11 April—2023, relating to ChatGPT.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's the normal courtesy, when these sorts of issues are risen to, to advise the government that this request is being made. I wasn't aware of it, and to the best of my knowledge nobody on the government side was. So I'd be happy to take the question on notice.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think that was an explanation, and therefore I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the explanation.</para></quote>
<para>Not only did we email the minister's office—and of course there seems to be a breakdown in internal communications there—but this question was asked on 11 April. They've had some seven months to provide an answer to a question which, I've got to say, other ministries and other ministers were able to answer within four weeks. The questions we were asking of the Treasurer were: are the departments, agencies or ministerial offices under the Treasurer's direction using ChatGPT? It is a pretty simple question. And what did we get? Silence. We said: if yes, what were they using it for? No answer. Then we said: which bits of the agencies are using ChatGPT? No answer. We asked: do the ministers have any policies prohibiting employees? No answer. We asked: can you explain, if it is used, what the rationale for the use is? Why can't the Treasurer answer this within seven months? Why can't the Treasurer say whether or not ChatGPT is being used in Treasury and other agencies under the Treasurer's control?</para>
<para>This is an important matter of public interest because it fundamentally relates to privacy, to security and also to data sovereignty. We know, from ministers who actually take their accountability to parliament seriously, that multiple departments have been using ChatGPT, and we know they've been doing it without any policies in place, without any record keeping and without any checks and balances being put in place. How do we know that? Because those other ministers actually answered questions directed to them from parliament. They actually read the rulebook on Westminster accountability.</para>
<para>For example, we know that Department of Defence staff accessed ChatGPT thousands of times without any approval. It seems that the Department of Defence went off on a frolic on ChatGPT, maybe hoping that was the way they could solve some of their seemingly insoluble problems about recruitment and procurement or even just try to work out how many generals, air marshals and admirals they have at any one point in time. It probably would require a detailed request of ChatGPT to actually track down the number of senior personnel in the ADF. But, anyhow, they managed to respond to the questions put to them.</para>
<para>We also know that Home Affairs have been experimenting with ChatGPT. They've been using it in the Information and Communications Technology Division, in the Refugee, Humanitarian and Settlement Division, in the Data and Economic Analysis Centre and in the Cyber and Critical Technology Coordination Centre. Remarkably, those parts of Home Affairs whose job it is to do cybersecurity and to look at critical technology coordination had all been plugging away into ChatGPT for experimentation and learning purposes with no record keeping and no policy. Heaven knows how much of our public and private data Home Affairs fed into ChatGPT. The reason there's a big question mark about what Home Affairs did is that they kept no records at all of their use of ChatGPT.</para>
<para>The only way they were able to try and come up with at least some kind of answer about the use of ChatGPT was by putting a survey out to their staff, saying: 'Please tell us if you've been using ChatGPT. Tell us if you can remember what it was for. Tell us if you can remember when it was done. Tell us if you can remember the nature of the response.' A bunch of the responses, when we looked at the survey, which we managed to force out of them, were: 'Look, I used it, but it was a while ago. I can't really remember what I plugged in. Maybe I should be able to remember what I plugged in. Sorry about that.' That's Home Affairs, which is meant to be leading our cybersecurity response. Not only did they have no policy, and not only did they keep no records, but, when they surveyed their staff, they couldn't even remember.</para>
<para>So is it any wonder we want an answer from Treasury about what they've been doing with ChatGPT? Is it any wonder that it's not just the Greens who think that the government should have transparency on how they use these large language models, with all of their potential biases, privacy concerns and security concerns? Is it any wonder that we want an answer to these questions? And we want an answer within 12 months. It's been more than seven months since we asked the question—seven months waiting for an answer from the Treasurer about the use of ChatGPT. And then, when we put them on notice today, the Special Minister of State seemed to be lost in some sort of email black hole. They can't even get notification from Treasury about the request that we made and finally provide an answer.</para>
<para>Why is it important that we get the answer from Treasury? One of the key reasons that Treasury needs to come clean about its use of ChatGPT is that it has so much access to sensitive and confidential information. It has detailed predictions about where the economy is going to go. It's making hugely important decisions about the allocation of public finances. It's preparing the national budget. So one of the things we want to know is: did the Albanese government check on ChatGPT for the preparation of their last budget? Is the Albanese government currently feeding information into ChatGPT to come up with speeches or to come up with other public policy positions in relation to the upcoming budget? Are there any policies at all in Treasury controlling how they use ChatGPT?</para>
<para>I've got to say there's a deafening silence from Treasury, and behind the deafening silence you can actually hear the alarm bells going off. The real concern with the Treasurer refusing to answer the questions about ChatGPT is that they've been using it a lot without records, without policy and without any checks and balances. How else do you explain a seven-month embarrassed silence from the Treasurer about whether or not they use ChatGPT and the circumstances in which they use it?</para>
<para>We've seen Treasury behaving very badly with public information already. We've seen how few controls they have on critical public information. For example, remember how they gave a private briefing to PwC and a bunch of other leading global accountancy firms? They gave a private briefing about proposed changes they were making to Australia's tax laws, and they gave that detailed heads-up—critically important and confidential information, information that if improperly disclosed could cost the Australian public and Treasury hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. But Treasury were okay handing that out to PwC, if you remember. They handed it over to PwC for whatever. Heaven knows what was going through their minds at the time—that they thought it was a good idea to hand out that confidential information to firms whose job it was to advise corporate Australia on how to avoid tax. Heaven knows how they thought that was a good idea to give that information to PwC.</para>
<para>The question is: have they been equally reckless with the information that they've been feeding into ChatGPT? Once you feed public data or a citizen's data into ChatGPT, it's gobbled up by the model. It's literally swallowed by the model, and you can never get it back again. So how much public information, public data and confidential information has Treasury fed into ChatGPT? Well, I'd like to know. I think the public has a right to know. The Treasurer should answer the question, and the minister responsible here should make the Treasurer answer the question because that's how the system's meant to work. It is so unreasonable to wait seven months to get some basic transparency out of Treasury.</para>
<para>We also know that if that Treasury information is fed into ChatGPT then it can be pulled out and extracted by other people. If that information gets into the wrong hands, it can obviously cause harm, and it's vital therefore to know what data they've entered into products such as ChatGPT, with all the serious privacy and security concerns that that holds. It is more than frustrating to see a government that came in with all of that baloney about transparency and those statements about saying it'd be different to the previous government; this time they would be transparent and this time they'd give information and wouldn't be the same as the secret coalition government under Morrison. This was going to be a new government, and bloody hell we needed a new government. But it is so frustrating to read all those promises from when Labor was in opposition and then to see Labor in government. It's like the leopard changed its spots as soon as it got into the government benches.</para>
<para>We had the Attorney-General, when he was in opposition as the shadow AG, supporting challenges in the Federal Court to the failure to provide answers to FOI, but as soon as he became the AG he funded the opposition to that very same case to the tune of hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars to shut down information. And we had the Labor opposition complain about the lack of answers and transparency from government ministers, and now they're sitting there in the Treasury benches, in the government benches, and behaving just like the coalition did when it came to transparency.</para>
<para>All that talk and all that bluster, and here we are seven months down the track still not having a basic answer about the extent to which Treasury used ChatGPT. That's a shameful indictment of the lack of transparency from the Albanese government, and it puts into question all of those other public commitments they made.</para>
<para>So I ask again, not just on behalf of the Greens but on behalf of the Australian public: what's Treasury been doing with ChatGPT? How much of the Australian public's data have they fed into it? What checks and balances did they have on it? What, if any, policies do they have in place to protect this confidential information, which is critical to the finances of the federal government and critical as well for the private protection of citizens' personal and private data. It is not too much to expect an answer. An answer within 28 days is what's required, but here we are seven months down the track, and we have this deafening silence from Labor and the Treasurer on the extent to which they've used ChatGPT. I would expect that, in the absence of a rapid answer from the Treasurer, we'll be back again sometime later this week demanding some transparency and some adequate answers from the Treasurer. If you've got nothing to hide, Treasurer, give us the answers.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS</title>
        <page.no>67</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Answers to Questions</title>
          <page.no>67</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUGHES</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today..</para></quote>
<para>I've got to be honest: I really don't know where to start. What a disgraceful effort. Seriously, the dithering, the incompetence, the blatant ignorance and the casual sexism on full display today were unbelievable.</para>
<para>As to Senator Shoebridge's point about ChatGPT, I can tell you that Senator Farrell could probably have done with it today. He could have started by putting in, 'What is aggregate demand?' because it was very clear that he didn't even know what the term meant, let alone how this government has any plan to lower it. They don't even know what the economic term is. It is so embarrassing that basic economic principles are a complete mystery to this government. They have absolutely no understanding.</para>
<para>We saw over half an hour of a fundamental stunt by those at the end of the chamber, supported by those opposite. It's like a constant little filibuster we are seeing this week, because there's not quite enough to pad out the agenda for a Senate-only sitting week, so we're doing everything we can to extend the very small amount of business that we've got. We have not actually passed a bill this week, you will all be interested to know. It's a great use of everybody's time—not one bill in three days.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McAllister</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd love to pass a bill.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Duniam</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Use the guillotine.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUGHES</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, where's the guillotine? They love that. I think we'd actually support it at this stage, because a bill has got to go through, so let's just bring it on. But no. We can't do that, because then what are we going to talk about later? They're all non-contro bits of legislation that everyone's supporting, with very few amendments, so what are we going to talk about?</para>
<para>This is the appalling behaviour of this government, aided and abetted by their mates at the end of the chamber, when all Australians are facing a cost of living crisis. The <inline font-style="italic">Guardian</inline> is not one of my usual sources of news, but I noticed that even the <inline font-style="italic">Guardian</inline>, the cheer squad for those opposite, was commenting yesterday on the fact that almost half of all Australians with mortgages are already experiencing mortgage stress, and that was before the rate rise yesterday. So they were already in mortgage stress and facing cost-of-living pressure, yet the government don't understand basic economic terms. They waste half an hour on an absolutely ridiculous stunt. If you want to have a look at some of the inappropriate commentary that's been going on in this place, let's have a look at the support for Hamas that we've seen from some people in this place. There has been beheading and burning of babies and murder of families and of young people who were at a music festival in Israel.</para>
<para>But somehow an offer of a lift to the airport is the most offensive thing that's ever been heard in this chamber. What a joke.</para>
<para>And all this is at the time when the average Australian family with a mortgage of around $750,000 now has to find an extra $24,000 per year. That's not really change that most of us have down the back of the couch. Maybe some of those that got payouts from the union before they headed into the Senate on the ALP ticket got a bit of a boost from them. That $24,000 is not a lot to them, but to most Australians it's a lot of money. And it's $24,000 after tax, so it's an awful lot of money that families have to find and earn just to be able to afford their mortgage. And this is before they even think about putting food on the table—that's gone up over eight per cent—and before they turn the lights on. Heaven forbid that, when we have a really hot summer this year, anyone wants to put air conditioning on, because no-one can afford their power bills, but those opposite—the transparency stuff is just gone. Don't even say that word; the opaque mess they operate under is a joke. The referendum was an election commitment, so we had to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on that, but the election commitment of reducing power bills by $275 has just gone by the wayside. They cannot even mention $275.</para>
<para>This government has become the government of Grinch. They are going to do everything they can through their economic vandalism to destroy Christmas for so many Australian families this year. It is absolutely obscene. Here they are laughing and joking about the mortgage stress that families are going to be under. The senator that was just having a good chuckle about the government of Grinch: you know what? You go and talk to those Australian families who are now wondering how they're going to pay the mortgage because of your economic recklessness and inability to understand even basic economic terms.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>History cannot be changed simply by senators from the former government coming into this place and trying to change the reality of what happened for 10 years when they were in government. They left this country—taxpayers, every one of us—$1 trillion in debt. We know so well about the cost of living. Why do we know about the cost of living? It is because we actually go out to listen to and talk to everyday Australians all the time, unlike those opposite.</para>
<para>Let's get a few facts on the record. Let's talk about inflation and how that's impacting the globe. Yes, we are experiencing high inflation, and we're doing everything we can to reduce that. We talk about that in this place on a daily basis—sometimes every few hours, actually—in terms of what we have done since coming into government. We've increased wages for ordinary Australians. We've invested a lot of money into aged care. We've reduced the cost of medication. We've allowed you to get 60-day scripts, which helps people like me and others who have chronic illnesses to get 60 days of medication, which means they go back to their GP less often, which allows more appointments for other Australians.</para>
<para>But they don't want to hear about this. They don't want to hear about the investment we're making into TAFE by giving fee-free paces in TAFE for essential areas of the community where we need more workers. I can't let today go past, not in taking note and talking about aged care. For 10 years they were in government. They already had the foundations from the previous Labor minister in the Hon. Mark Butler, who set the new foundations for aged care and started that process. They came into government because that's what the Australian people voted for, and what happened? What happened for almost 10 years? Well, it hadn't even got to 10 years before they had to call a royal commission into aged care on their own failings. Why? Because they had only ripped money out. They used aged care as a teller machine. That's what they did when they were in government. They did not invest in the workforce. They did not invest in ensuring that there was a long-term strategy not only to keep people working in aged care and highly skill them but to attract new workers.</para>
<para>We will never apologise for putting older Australians first.</para>
<para>We won't apologise for reversing the neglect. The royal commission report was called 'neglect'. It was under this opposition, when they were in government, so we will not apologise for insisting that there are nurses in aged-care homes 24 hours a day. It was already happening in Tasmania but they still experienced neglect under those opposite. They invested nothing. The food that was being served up to older Australians, no-one in this chamber, I can assure you, would ever have eaten. Let's not even talk about the failure of six ministers—six ministers! Why did they fail? Because they really didn't care.</para>
<para>Those opposite come into this chamber and whinge. Now they are so concerned about the cost of living and inflation, housing crisis in this country but, when they had the opportunity to really do something, they did nothing. Since they've been in opposition, they are doing what they always do when they go into opposition—that is, they go 'no, no, no'. They voted against providing the funds to assure more affordable homes are built in this country. What did they do? They voted against ensuring that there is more social housing available for people who they probably don't even meet in their daily lives. What have they done for homelessness in this country? It is a blight on all of us that the fastest-growing cohort of homeless people in this country are women over 55.</para>
<para>Those opposite constantly criticise Labor about investing in superannuation. Why do we do that? Because we want every Australian worker to have the opportunity to have a secure retirement so they can afford to have a roof over their head, so they can afford to go to the doctor when they need to. We are investing in skills and training and in getting wages moving. When it was your policy, your own ministers used to say your policy was to keep wages low. We are in a crisis because you put us there with $1 trillion debt.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Question time today was particularly illuminating because of a lack of information given by ministers in response to questions. But what was particularly illuminating for Australians, particularly mortgage holders, was this hubris, this arrogance, this Marie Antoinette approach of the modern Labor Party of 'let people eat cake'. We have John Farrell, who is the Marie Antoinette of the Albanese Labor government. For those Australians, including me, who saw our mortgages go up yesterday, one question that was actually put by me to Minister Farrell was: What is the definition of mortgage stress? Minister Farrell just didn't answer the question.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll take Senator Colbeck's interjection. He didn't know the answer, but I think it was more that he didn't care. He didn't care that millions of Australians are facing something called mortgage stress. It is all right for the modern Labor Party with the money that they earn. But they have fallen out of touch with middle Australia. We saw that with the Voice referendum, where the Labor Party was convinced of the righteousness of the Voice and would brook no arguments against it. They forgot that the biggest issue in Australia today is cost of living, and it is only getting worse under this Labor government.</para>
<para>The questions that were put by the opposition today to the government were to elicit information. My second question was: How many Australian households are currently experiencing mortgage stress, and how many more will as a result of this interest rate rise under Labor? We wanted the information from the Labor ministers. They didn't know or didn't care. But it goes so much deeper than that in their approach to how they deal with the Australians who are facing not only this mortgage cliff, in many instances, but also mortgage stress.</para>
<para>For those who are listening at home, we were able to find out the answer to the first question, which is that mortgage stress is generally defined as a household needing to spend more than 30 per cent of disposable income on mortgage repayments. That is only going to rise, because under Labor we've had 12 interest rate rises in the last 16 months. Of the 17 times that the Reserve Bank have met since Labor has been in power, they've increased interest rates 12 times. When we were in power the Reserve Bank met 96 times and only raised interest rates once. This is a telling statistic in terms of how the independent Reserve Bank looks at both the economic conditions governing Australia and, by default, the policies of the government that is governing Australia.</para>
<para>What mortgage stress means is that families who've got a mortgage of, say, $750,000 are going to be paying an extra $24,000 a year. A mortgage of $750,000 is not uncommon in the capital cities. Where I live, out in the Darling Downs, that would be at the top end of the scale, but in the capital cities having a mortgage of three-quarters of a million dollars is actually quite common. I've spoken in this place previously about families on the Sunshine Coast, where my office is, having to pull their children out of sport because they can't afford the fees for them to play soccer and netball. What we've got, Mr Acting Deputy President, is the Labor Party, by their refusal to answer questions and by the manner in which they refuse to answer questions, thumbing their noses at the people of Australia. What is telling is that Minister Farrell said they were going to be in power a very long time. Such hubris! I think, like Icarus, he might be flying too close to the sun.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PRATT</name>
    <name.id>I0T</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In this debate on Senator Hughes's motion to take note of answers—indeed, as was also demonstrated in the questions asked by the opposition—we have an opposition that is unable to take account of the legacy of its time in government, including the impact on the nation's aggregate demand, which has left millions of people in our country in mortgage stress. Indeed, some 1.5 million households are experiencing mortgage stress at the moment. The opposition cannot, with any credibility, deliver a critique of our policies, because they cannot take account of the legacy of their own government.</para>
<para>Strong economic management is needed to support justified aggregate demand in key areas, such as providing access to medications by ensuring that they are affordable and accessible. We need to manage the cost of living and put downward inflationary pressure on areas where we know Australians need to be able to maximise their spending to maximise their wellbeing, particularly in these times of high interest rates. That is exactly why we introduced the electricity subsidy that was delivered through the states—some $275, on average. While we know that electricity prices have indeed grown more than that in many places, but not all, that enables households to spend money on the things that matter most.</para>
<para>Similarly, we have supported millions of households around Australia through changes to parenting payments, child care and medicine subsidies, access to bulk-billing and many more initiatives.</para>
<para>Indeed we don't want to suppress aggregate demand for critical things that families and households need, but we have been stuck with the inflationary pressures on our economy, not only from Ukraine and fuel prices and from global economic headwinds but also, very tellingly, from a trillion dollars of Liberal-National coalition debt.</para>
<para>What do high levels of government debt mean for aggregate demand? What do high levels of government debt mean when governments refuse to balance their budget and manage aggregate demand? It adds up to trillions of dollars worth of debt. What has our government done to manage aggregate demand? It most certainly has included balancing the budget so that we are not spending more than our nation earns, like those opposite did. Sure, there were times in the economic cycle in the past few years—for example, during COVID—when we supported the deliberate lifting of aggregate demand to keep the economy moving. But heavens above—the money that you took and that you let your corporate mates take off with! When Qantas outsourced workers and sacked them at the same time as pocketing millions of dollars of JobSeeker payments—which they were then able to turn into corporate profit—that added to the bottom line of trillions dollars worth of debt. That certainly didn't put any downward pressure as far as your government's legacy goes on aggregate demand! And what cheek— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What an embarrassment of riches for the opposition to pursue, in terms of the non-answers given to questions asked by coalition senators in question time today. It could not be more perfectly bounded than by the example set by the acting Leader of the Government in the Senate who could not give to the parliament and to the Australian people the definition of 'mortgage stress' when asked by my colleague in question time today. We see this time and time again. We see the refusal to answer a question. We see the deflection of blame to somebody else or to something else: 'It's not our fault.' They're not willing to take responsibility for holding the Treasury benches, which they do at the will of the Australian people. They trot out the talking points. You can see the ball bouncing along the talking points. 'We understand Australians are doing it tough,' they say. But Australians are tired of hearing that from the government because, as we know, the government is not actually doing anything about it. The government continues to blame everybody else.</para>
<para>Likewise, when it comes to salmon farming on the west coast of Tasmania, we see extraordinary concerns. We see threatening letters from the Minister for the Environment and Water, and it just follows on from other things. In particular, people on the east coast of Tasmania in those resource based industries are suffering from the lack of capacity of this government to make a decision. I congratulate the Premier on his response to the environment minister's letter. We will be supporting the salmon industry. What did Premier Rockliff say? He said: 'I want to be clear. I will not stand by and allow the federal Labor government to kill off our salmon industry and the 350 jobs that it supports.' Mind you, the government couldn't even tell us today how many jobs the salmon industry supports. I give a shout-out to the mayor of the West Coast Council, Mr Shane Pitt, who is completely unimpressed with Ms Plibersek's threats. 'Minister Plibersek is playing political games with the lives of people in our community, and it's a bloody disgrace,' Councillor Pitt says, and good on Councillor Pitt for sticking up for his community.</para>
<para>It's just like the workers at MMG, who are waiting for a decision on being able to continue the life of that mine on the west coast. The salmon farmers and the communities of people they support should be supported by this government, and all we hear are threats from the minister and a refusal to make decisions in support of the industry. The Tasmanian government, along with industry, has put a strong plan on the table to protect the maugean skate, and what we want to see from this government is unequivocal support for the Tasmanian salmon industry.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Immigration</title>
          <page.no>70</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Senator Watt) to a question without notice I asked today relating to immigration.</para></quote>
<para>Senator Watt repeatedly failed to answer my first and second questions. When will the Labor government stop this unsustainable high immigration? It revealed Senator Watt's complete lack of care for the people of Australia, his dismissal of the people, his arrogance towards the people and his contempt for the real and serious issues facing Australians, such as the housing crisis, with the shortage and high cost of houses and rents; inflation due in part to increased immigration; and hiding the per capita recession. If it weren't for the record high arrivals in Australia we would be in recession right now. Cabinet is covering up the fact that its policies, including net zero, are raising energy prices exorbitantly and destroying manufacturing, security and tertiary processing—and Labor's big corporate mates are profiteering.</para>
<para>Halfway through his government's term he's still blaming the previous government. That's all you've got, Senator Watt? And then he said falsely that I called immigrants terrorists. I did not do that. I would not do that. I was born in India. Minister Watt is clearly breaching standing orders by not being relevant and by impugning my motives. Senator Hanson was sitting beside me at the time, under the President's censure, yet Senator Watt gets off scot-free.</para>
<para>The Albanese government is heading down the same dead-end road the Rudd government chose. I'll give you some quotes from the headlines of the <inline font-style="italic">Courier Mail</inline>: Albanese 'doesn't properly read important briefing documents'; 'S-show'—a four-letter word—'political chameleon' who wasn't prepared; a 'shemozzle' and decisions which have rocked the party to its core. How long before members of the government change from hearing negative statements about Prime Minister Albanese to actively working to oust him? The Albanese voice relied on the vibe, hiding the details and contradicting claims, and had an apparent belief that voice proponents could fool the people with emotion. Start treating the Senate and the people with respect. Be honest.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Domestic and Family Violence</title>
          <page.no>70</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Prime Minister (Senator Farrell) to a question without notice I asked today relating to domestic and family violence.</para></quote>
<para>I asked about the tragic number of women killed by violence—women murdered. We know the rates are atrocious, but the last month has seen those rates absolutely skyrocket. I asked the minister representing the Prime Minister: What's being done to tackle this national crisis? Will the government put this on the National Cabinet agenda, where I think it belongs, to give it that national focus and to work together with the states and territories to bring the national might and coordinating ability to better tackle these horrific rates of murder? I didn't get a 'no', so I take heart from that. I'm not sure Minister Farrell has the authority to schedule a National Cabinet meeting, but I do take heart from his statement that the government will look at any measures that might reduce violence against women.</para>
<para>That's positive, because I also mentioned that it's quite hard to track how many women have been murdered. At the moment we've got volunteer organisations doing that work. Now, bless their hearts for doing it, and I acknowledge the huge amount of trauma that they sustain in so doing. But this is an important issue. We should not be leaving the count of how many women are killed by violence to volunteer organisations. We need the government to be the source of this data. We need clear criteria on which that data is compiled, and, much like we do with the road toll to try to deter people from speeding, it's my belief that if we had a national toll of women killed by violence it would help with that prevention and that culture change.</para>
<para>So I asked the minister whether or not the government would consider that and, again, he said they're going to look at any measures that might reduce violence against women. I welcome that still being on the table, and I certainly hope that the minister kicks it up the line for the Prime Minister to turn his mind to seriously.</para>
<para>I also challenged the minister on the very disappointing funding commitment from this government. Yes, it's an increase on the funding from the previous government, but it's still about half of what the frontline support services have been calling for so that they can meet demand for people who are seeking support in fleeing violence. Whether that's legal support, counselling, emergency housing or long-term housing, the sector has been saying for some time now that they need about $1 billion every year simply to meet the current demand for their support for women fleeing violence. They're predicting that demand will increase, and yet they don't even have half of what they need with the current demand. So I challenged the minister: what is the reason for underfunding these services that are helping keep women alive? When we've seen such a jump in the numbers of women murdered just last month, why are you not increasing the amount to these crucial frontline support services? You're spending money on nuclear submarines. You're spending money on tax cuts for the wealthy—mostly men. Why can't you fund these frontline domestic violence, and family and sexual violence support services? The minister didn't really engage with that question of why they aren't. He simply reported back to me the figures that they are committing. But in May estimates this year, the department confirmed that in fact it's only about half of what the sector has been asking for. The minister was unable to commit any extra funding like the government really should.</para>
<para>The last part of my question was directed towards the cultural change that's so desperately needed to stop this epidemic of murder and violence against women. I note the comments made by the former principal of the school where Lilie James was murdered in the last few weeks. That former principal wrote this glowing diatribe about the murderer, saying that the guy was an absolute delight. It's not the first time that we see the media or people in society somehow say: 'Oh, this was a great bloke. He must've just—something snapped.' What we really need to do is understand what is driving this behaviour. There's a lot of literature that says that it's firmly entrenched gender inequality, and power and privilege that are playing into the expressions of violence that lead to these statistics of 46 women this year having been killed by a partner or former partner. Many of the organisations are calling for a national perpetration study to better target the cultural change work. There is some good cultural change work going on, but it's clearly not enough because the numbers are not coming down. So I'm passing on that desire by the sector to have a national perpetration study. This would also, correctly, shift the focus off victims-survivors and onto the perpetrators, where it belongs. This is an issue for men to step up and solve. We need men to call out the sexism and misogyny that are driving these murders of women and their children. I invite the government to do that.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>71</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Personal Explanation</title>
          <page.no>71</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement of one minute in response to remarks made by Senator Lambie prior to question time.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the Senate. Prior to question time, Senator Lambie indicated that, potentially, some offence had been taken by remarks that I had made. I've had the chance to check those remarks. I said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In speaking to that debate at that time, President, I made a plea to all senators—particularly those at that end of the chamber—to stay out of the gutter, to rise above the Twitterverse, and to play the ball, not the person.</para></quote>
<para>If Senator Lambie or any senator took any offence at those remarks, I apologise to that senator for any offence taken. However, I would restate the plea to all senators, which is to stay out of the gutter, to rise above the Twitterverse and to play the ball, not the person, in all debates in this place.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUDGET</title>
        <page.no>71</page.no>
        <type>BUDGET</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Consideration by Estimates Committees</title>
          <page.no>71</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Pursuant to order, I call on the minister to provide an explanation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek to make a statement on behalf of Senator Gallagher in relation to item 11. It is disappointing that Senator Hume has chosen to wilfully waste the Senate's time this afternoon by seeking this attendance.</para>
<para>As the government indicated when opposing this motion, Senate estimates questions on notice have increased to more than 19,000 in the first year of the Albanese government. We have answered all questions from the October 2022 budget estimates and the February 2023 supplementary budget estimates. With regard to the May 2023 budget estimates hearings, our government has now answered over 8½ thousand of the 8,600 questions, 2½ thousand of which were asked by Senator Hume. There is an existing right under standing order 74(5) for Senator Hume to seek an explanation for unanswered questions on notice, and this remedy has been available to Senator Hume on any sitting day since the deadline set by the committee for the return of answers passed. Similarly, nothing prevents Senator Hume from reaching out to the Treasurer's office to inquire about the status of responses prior to seeking unnecessary remedies in the Senate. With respect to the four Senate estimates questions on notice nominated by Senator Hume, I can inform the Senate that those answers have now been provided to the committee.</para>
<para>In closing, I will compare our record to that of the Morrison government, which, for the equivalent budget estimates in May 2021, answered only 67 per cent of questions by the due date. We urge those opposite to focus on substantive consideration of legislation that will benefit the Australian people, rather than requiring attendance on matters that are within the capacity of existing processes to resolve.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the explanation provided to the Senate by the Minister representing the Treasurer on the failure of the government to comply with the resolution of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee.</para></quote>
<para>I thank Senator McAllister, who was a member of that committee for many, many years, for the explanation that she has now given on behalf of the Treasurer. Of course, the Labor Party talked a very big game about transparency and accountability when they came to government. The Prime Minister said last year that Australian people deserve accountability and transparency. But, when it comes to Labor, you have to look at what they do and not at what they say. There were, in fact, 16 questions asked of the Department of the Treasury at budget estimates back in late May and early June this year. Those answers were tabled the day before or on the actual day of supplementary budget estimates in October, three months later.</para>
<para>The government has pointed to—and, I'm sure, will continue to point to—the number of questions received on notice as an excuse for lateness. I'm terribly sorry if governing is so hard for you. The evidence provided by Treasury to the committee was very, very clear. Treasury departmental officials did their job. They drafted those answers, and then they provided those draft answers to either the Treasurer's office or the relevant Treasury minister's office. In all but one case, they did this before those answers on notice were due. After that, what happened seems a little bit unclear. The offices had plenty of time to review them, but then they didn't provide them to the committee. They didn't provide them to the Senate economics committee, and it's not clear why. What we do know is that the office had them for, in some cases, up to 134 days. That's how long the Treasurer's office sat on these questions on notice. In one case, the answer to one of those questions was one sentence. I'm not sure how hard this should be. These answers to questions that were put by the Senate of Australia languished somewhere in the Treasurer's office for months and months before they were finally provided to the committee, as I have said, the day before—and some were provided the day of—supplementary budget estimates. How transparent. How honest. Such integrity and openness to scrutiny! Let's do government differently, shall we?</para>
<para>At estimates, as these responses were trickling in and officials were at the desk, I asked:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… we have just received questions on notice from Treasury that were asked at the last estimates, and to be honest it's outrageous and quite frankly almost contemptuous that we should be receiving those questions on notice less than 24 hours before they appear again.</para></quote>
<para>The Treasury secretary responded:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I do understand there are 11 questions on notice that haven't been answered. I apologise to the committee for not having done that. We'll do our best to get those answers to you quickly.</para></quote>
<para>But it became very clear very quickly that in fact the Treasury secretary was covering for his boss. It was soon discovered that Dr Kennedy and his team at Treasury had sent the responses to the Treasurer's office months before he said that. Imagine the Treasurer putting his departmental secretary and—let's not forget—his former colleague, Dr Kennedy, in that professionally uncomfortable, invidious position, to have to cover for what can only be one of two things: it's either the Treasurer's incompetence or his contempt for the Senate and the Senate's processes.</para>
<para>At least Senator Gallagher, as the Minister representing the Treasurer at Senate estimates, understood how unacceptable this approach was and the disregard that it showed to the Senate. She agreed with the Treasury secretary. She said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Yes, I think—and you have heard from officials—that answering questions in the time that's provided by committees is really important. … Also, I do hear the commitments from Treasury to continue to work to improve that response time.</para></quote>
<para>I didn't hear that commitment reiterated by Senator McAllister today. Clearly, Minister Gallagher too, as someone who has repeated the assertions of transparent government, did not appreciate being put in the position from her colleague in the other place of having to apologise to senators on his behalf in that committee. Both the Treasury secretary and the Minister representing the Treasurer were sitting there covering up for the Treasurer, who had made the active decision to hold questions in his office for months and then table them during the hearing. Now Senator McAllister has to stand in here and apologise to the chamber for the Treasurer's contempt of the Senate and its role as a house of review.</para>
<para>If the Treasurer has left it to others to clean up his mess, to cover up for his incompetence and to cover up for his contempt for this chamber that is disrespectful to his cabinet colleagues, to the Minister for Finance, to Senator McAllister and to the committee chair, Senator Walsh. It is not just disrespectful to the opposition; it is disrespectful to this entire chamber. The Treasurer has sent you in to do his dirty work, Senator McAllister. Perhaps the Treasurer should send in another nameless spokesperson, as he seems to favour doing, to make a comment about his decision to delay these answers and bury them in the Treasurer's office, yet another person from his staff to send in to do his dirty work. If the Treasurer's staff are listening today, chuckling to themselves down in the ministerial wing with the blue carpet, just remember that the Treasurer is using you, too. He is using you, as he has used so many others as another person sent in to clean up the Treasurer's incompetence or malice—talk about embarrassing and humiliating.</para>
<para>The Treasurer and his junior ministers, including the coalition's favourite, the self-opening pinata of Assistant Treasurer Jones, are hiding behind Treasury officials and their Senate colleagues rather than admitting that these are political delaying tactics. Why are they refusing to answer these questions? What are you trying to hide? Let's be honest, they are not difficult questions to answer. This is the Australian Senate, and Australians deserve to know what the government is doing—not the spin that they are putting on what they are doing, but what they are actually doing. The scrutiny of the Senate is for exactly that. These are the kinds of questions the Treasury have had to cover up because the fact is that the Treasurer hasn't answered them. Let me give you an example. One question was about tax. The question was:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… whether there have been, for either the Treasury or Treasury ministers, any briefings, discussions, calls, meetings or contacts at a ministerial level with the Victorian government on this issue already or whether there are any planned?</para></quote>
<para>For months the Treasurer sat on this illuminating, scandalous response:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Treasury is not aware of any briefings, discussions, calls or meetings between the Treasury or Treasury Ministers and the Victorian Government on the recent tax changes announced in Victoria’s 2023-24 Budget.</para></quote>
<para>Oh, my goodness, alert the media! Why was that one late?</para>
<para>In June, as part of budget estimates, my colleague Senator McKenzie asked:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Has Treasury done an internal response to the 5-year Productivity Inquiry as it relates to infrastructure?</para></quote>
<para>Again, it was not really a big ask. The response provided to the committee was this:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Treasury has not developed a single internal response to the Productivity Inquiry report, <inline font-style="italic">Advancing Prosperity</inline>, including as it relates to infrastructure.</para></quote>
<para>That sounds like it took an awful lot of work! It's not exactly what you'd expect from the department of a treasurer who recently came out and said that he was going to cut infrastructure because he simply has no other plan to fight inflation. This is pretty basic stuff.</para>
<para>In May, Senator Bragg asked how many measures from the productivity inquiry advancing prosperity report are in the 2023-24 budget. The response drafted by Treasury was provided to the minister's office on 26 June, but it wasn't until 25 October, four months later, that a response was received. We've now received a few more additional responses—I'm hoping, to question No. BET130 on the RBA's monetary statement and to question No. BET161 on the labour market. I think they still might remain at large. However, they may well have sat in that black hole of the Treasurer's office.</para>
<para>Rather than giving the Senate and the people of Australia via the Senate the responses to the questions on these key policy issues, the Treasurer continues to hide behind his department. We will continue to pursue these matters, and we will use these motions to draw them from those opposite. I remind the Senate that it was those Labor senators opposite who referred the tax commissioner to this chamber's Privileges Committee for preventing information being given to the Senate. I trust that they are ready to do the same if people outside this place continue to treat it with the contempt that has been shown by this Treasurer.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hume, I think your colourful remark about the assistant finance minister was probably bordering on needing to be withdrawn, but we'll let it go at this point.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My contribution is going to be quite short. I just want people who are listening to the proceedings, including the people in the gallery, to understand and appreciate what this debate is about. This institution of the Senate is a house of review; it is a house of scrutiny. We're all sent here as senators representing our respective states and territories to do our best to play our role as an important check and balance on the power of executive government. That means it's incumbent upon us to ask the questions that should be asked, to probe the government and to get the information that we need in order to put the uncomfortable questions to the executive government. That's in the best interests of our whole Australian democracy.</para>
<para>As part of that process, the Senate estimates process is absolutely critical. That means we have different committees, such as the economics committee, the legal and constitutional affairs legislation committee, of which I'm deputy chair, and other committees. During the Senate estimates process, we have the opportunity to ask questions in relation to any matter involving the expenditure of government funds, which basically means anything involving payments of money—your taxpayer dollars. It is incredibly important when we ask questions in the context of those committees that we get the answers back as quickly as possible so we can ask the follow-up questions.</para>
<para>What has been happening—and Senator Hume has given detailed examples—is that questions have been asked of the relevant officials, particularly Treasury; they have drafted the answers to those questions; they have provided them to the Treasurer, who is from my home state of Queensland, the member for Rankin; and they've sat in his office. In one of the examples given by my colleague Senator Hume, the answer sat in the Treasurer's office for 134 days. Why? I know the Treasurer is extremely active in his electorate. I often run into him at various events on his patch—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>always being cooperative and collaborative, Senator Farrell, as I am.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Farrell</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Just like me.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, not quite just like you. You're enigmatic. What has been happening is that the Treasurer's been sitting on those answers. Why is he sitting on those answers? For political reasons. That is the only conclusion you can come to. He releases the answers on the day before the next estimates or on the day of estimates. Why would you do that? If you had the answer in your office and it could be dispatched, why would you do that? The only reasons why you would do that are base political reasons. Those watching this debate should expect better of their elected representatives. So I congratulate Senator Hume for raising these important issues.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I did just remind Senator Hume about references to junior ministers, and yours probably sailed close, about Minister Farrell.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Scarr</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Enigmatic? I thought that was a compliment.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, it could be a compliment, but it could also not be. So I'm just reminding senators: make your jokes outside of the chamber.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We have a limited number of tools that we can use to ensure that we are doing our job as senators in this place. We have the questions on notice, we have the estimates processes and we have the orders for production of documents. It's often been the case under this government that you've been able to get more through an FOI request as a citizen than you can as a senator through those processes, which I think is hugely regrettable given that this is a core accountability function that the Australian people want us to perform, irrespective of our political colour or our policy interests or particular positions.</para>
<para>The reason that I asked about these productivity issues in the estimates in June—and I note that we have received the answer to this question in the last hour; it's remarkable, actually, that it's hit right on today—is that the nature of the productivity agenda of the government impacts the welfare of all the Australian people. If the government of the day is not running a productivity agenda in accordance with the advice from the Productivity Commission, which most of us would generally accept would be good advice, then that is a concern and we need to understand exactly why the government is not progressing the changes that the PC has recommended.</para>
<para>My question, which was on 16 June 2023, was simply: what measures from the Productivity Commission's latest reports has the government adopted in that budget? Having received a response on one piece of paper in the last hour, I think the answer to the question is zero. That's fine, but the answer should have been provided in a reasonable period.</para>
<para>I understand that the government wants to support its favourite vested interests. If you could go back and look at the last 100 or so years of Australian politics, one of the major criticisms that have been levied at the Labor Party over this period has been that it is beholden to vested interests, and I believe that is a legitimate complaint that we would raise in our role as an opposition. In relation to these matters, the Productivity Commission has recommended in its latest report that there should be the introduction of menus into industrial awards, which would enable a more flexible workplace, particularly for small businesses. We know that through the government's own policies they are pursuing a different agenda—multi-employer bargaining and the abolition labour hire—for various reasons. It is, I think, fair and reasonable that an opposition member could, through the Treasury secretary at the time, ask a question which relates to how much of the work of the Productivity Commission has been adopted by the government. That's all the question is. There are no tricks or gimmicks. That's all the question was. The answer provided today effectively says that none of those suggestions from the PC have been adopted. That is regrettable, but that is a legitimate point of difference that we may have.</para>
<para>But the point here is one of transparency and sticking to what the government said when it was the opposition.</para>
<para>As I think former senator Patrick has said, 'Transparency is a word that is only ever uttered from the opposition benches.' That is hugely regrettable because the institutions can be eroded by governments deliberately avoiding the orders of the parliament and then deciding that, for political reasons, they will file endless—and I would say in some cases illegitimate—public interest immunity claims. In fact, the vast bulk of the orders that I've seen passed by this Senate chamber in relation to Treasury matters in this parliament have been emasculated by the government and have not been properly complied with. That is regrettable because the institution is going to be less effective if we allow the government of the day—no matter who that is—to erode these transparency and integrity arrangements, which are necessary.</para>
<para>It is a good thing that the country now has an integrity commission and it is a good thing that these things have been done, but it's also important that the old integrity measures and the old transparency measures of Senate estimates, questions on notice and orders for the production of documents are treated seriously and with respect by the incumbent government. I think Senator Walsh has done a good job of chairing the Senate Economics Legislation Committee in estimates and I think she understands that estimates hearings are for the opposition parties to ask questions. I respect that very much. But it is disappointing that the executive government have decided to debase the Senate's powers, which are there in this way for the Australian people, and I hope that in future estimates we don't have to wait until the next estimates or after the next estimates to get answers back on important matters in this country.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd also like to use this opportunity to support the comments and the call for improvement that Senator Hume made regarding the government's current tardiness in responding to questions on notice through the estimates process. I also want to reinforce the comments Senator Scarr made with regard to the primacy of this Senate chamber in securing information from the executive government and to support what Senator Bragg had to say.</para>
<para>I also have seen a number of examples, with regard to not just questions on notice but FOIs and OPDs, where, as Senator Scarr correctly pointed out, the timing of the release of information is not because the Treasurer's office is inefficient but because the information is released at politically motivated times. Without going into all the detail, one very powerful example was the release of documents with regard to the effigy on the $5 note. I was told that documents weren't available because my question had used the word 'portrait' and not the word 'effigy'—I kid you not—and so the release of the documents was withheld.</para>
<para>More recently, for FOIs with regard to the release of conversations between the Commonwealth government and state and territory governments over the GST distribution arrangements, the Treasurer's office has been—as I say in my office—playing ducks and drakes. They say, 'We can't find the documents,' 'There are too many documents,' or, 'There's a delay.' I don't expect the Treasurer himself to be poring over every FOI decision or OPD or question on notice—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Farrell</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, you do.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>but I do believe, Senator Farrell, he should be exercising prudence and sound judgement when it comes to people in his office that are exercising those functions.</para>
<para>This is a very important point because officials from across the Australian government work to support executive government, absolutely—like Senator Farrell in the ministries that he has—but they also exist to support the work of the parliament. If they didn't have that requirement they wouldn't appear at Senate committee inquiries when we inquire into legislation and references. They wouldn't appear at Senate estimates hearings if they didn't exist to support the work of the parliament. They support the work of the parliament through their respective ministers—that's absolutely true—but what we heard from Senator McAllister was that the government has decided to hold itself to a standard that's the same as the previous government. If that's the case, why wouldn't Australians have re-elected the previous government?</para>
<para>It doesn't actually quite fit because on 16 august 2022 the now Prime Minister, Mr Albanese, gave Australia a commitment. He said that the Australian people deserve accountability and transparency, not secrecy. That was his commitment to electors and he is reneging on that. He is reneging on it through the experience of coalition senators with his first economic officer, Dr Chalmers.</para>
<para>There is plenty of time for improvement. There will be another estimates process in February next year, another one in May, perhaps one later next year if there is no election. But I want to put this particular point on notice. It is a very important one. If officials in the Treasury are listening to this contribution this afternoon, they should take pen and paper and write this down. The government guidelines for official witnesses before parliamentary committees and related matters is an official document. Paragraph 4.15.1 says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">While it is appropriate to take questions on notice if the information sought is not available or incomplete, officials should not take questions on notice as a way of avoiding further questions during the hearing.</para></quote>
<para>Just recently, I asked officials of the Treasury some questions about a matter only to discover after that that some people had already been appointed to a panel of inquiry, that a meeting had been already organised. In my questions to Treasury officials, they presented the situation as not yet complete. As the secretary in the Treasury knows, I am not shy to write to him directly asking for a significant improvement in these matters.</para>
<para>So, I go on. The government guidelines for official witnesses before parliamentary committees and related matters, paragraph 4.15.1, goes on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">If officials have the information, but consider it necessary to consult the minister before providing it, they should state that as a reason for not answering rather than creating the impression that the information is not available.</para></quote>
<para>That is very powerful. When we come to the estimates process in February and again in May—Senator McKim, I am happy to show you the documentation—the taking of questions on notice is not permissible if officials know the answer. I am going to seek the Senate's cooperation that, in opening statements at Senate estimates process, this particular paragraph 4.15.1 is stated at the beginning of the estimates process so officials understand very, very clearly that it is not within their remit to take questions on notice if they know the answer to the question.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time for this debate has expired. The question is that the motion to take note, as moved by Senator Hume, be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>76</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>76</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>77</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Postponement</title>
          <page.no>77</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>77</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Leave of Absence</title>
          <page.no>77</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That leave of absence be granted to Senator Reynolds for 8 November 2023 for parliamentary reasons.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>78</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury</title>
          <page.no>78</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>78</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Monday, 27 November 2023:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) any correspondence between the Victorian Treasurer and the Federal Treasurer, since 1 June 2022, on the potential and/or actual impact on the forestry sector of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023, and related matters;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) any correspondence between the South Australian Treasurer and the Federal Treasurer, since 1 June 2022, on the potential and/or actual impact on the forestry sector of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023, and related matters; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a copy of any modelling undertaken by the Treasury on the potential and/or actual impact on the forestry sector of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Albanese government wishes to ensure that multinationals pay their fair share of tax in Australia. We're improving compliance, closing tax loopholes and enhancing transparency to ensure that there's money for the services that Australians expect and to level the playing field for Australian small businesses. Australians rightly expect that all taxpayers, from the largest multinationals to individuals, pay their fair share of tax, and we're consulting with industry and across the community on how we target tax avoidance without constraining legitimate commercial arrangements. We've been grateful for the engagement of industry in providing meaningful feedback on the principles, plans and draft legislation, and we want to arrive at an end point that balances compliance with public expectations that our multinational tax settings are fair and effective.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that general business notice of motion No. 368 standing in the name of Senator Duniam be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [17:00]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>41</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>19</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury</title>
          <page.no>79</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>79</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Thursday, 16 November 2023, any briefing notes, file notes, emails or other records of interaction, since 23 August 2023, between:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Treasurer or his office and the Department of the Treasury;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury or his office and the Department of the Treasury; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Treasurer or his office and the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury or his office;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">in relation to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the selection and appointment of the Competition Taskforce expert advisory panel as referenced in the Treasurer's joint media release with the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury on 30 October 2023; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the first meeting of the Competition Taskforce expert advisory panel on 30 October 2023.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that general business notice of motion No. 377 standing in the name of Senator Dean Smith and moved by Senator Duniam be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [17:08]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>38</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>21</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>80</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee</title>
          <page.no>80</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference</title>
            <page.no>80</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind senators that yesterday evening two votes were deferred as listed at item 15 on today's order of business. I understand it suits the convenience of the Senate to hold those votes now. I will deal first with the closure motion moved by Senator Watt concerning a proposed reference to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee. For the sake of clarity, if the closure motion is not agreed to, the motion will be called on again for further debate at item 22 of today's order of business. The question will now be put.</para>
<para>The question is that the closure motion be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [17:12] <br />(The President—Senator Lines) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>19</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>41</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind senators that as debate was not agreed to, senators may be able to make further contribution at a later time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS</title>
        <page.no>80</page.no>
        <type>REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Education Amendment (2023 Capital Funding) Regulations 2023</title>
          <page.no>80</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Disallowance</title>
            <page.no>80</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will now deal with the deferred motion relating to the motion moved by Senator Allman-Payne concerning a proposed disallowance:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Australian Education Amendment (2023 Capital Funding) Regulations 2023, made under the Australian Education Act 2013, be disallowed [F2023L01064].</para></quote>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [17:16] <br />(The President—Senator Lines) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>10</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>42</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</title>
        <page.no>81</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice</title>
          <page.no>81</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>A letter has been received from Senator Hanson:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">With the overwhelming vote against the voice to Parliament, Australians have stated they don't want division; welcome to country ceremonies and acknowledgements of country are divisive, denying the citizenship and sovereignty held by all Australians regardless of race, and should be abandoned in Australian parliaments, council chambers and from any official government proceedings.</para></quote>
<para>Is the proposal supported? It is supported. Senator McKim?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKim</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I have points of order on two issues, Mr Acting Deputy President. Firstly, I saw only four people rise to their feet, not five, so I seek your advice on that. Secondly, I ask for clarification, given that Senator Hanson has had the call withdrawn from her, as to whether she is still able to be counted as one of the people supporting this motion.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My understanding is that, as the signer of the letter, she is not counted. And there were five people standing.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKim</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On a further point of order, then: in that case there were certainly not five people standing, because she was one of the people standing.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKim, there were people standing at this end of the chamber.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKim</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, they weren't.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKim, I'm in the chair, and my role is to look and see people who were standing—making eye contact, making it clear—and my judgement was that there were the correct number of people standing for the motion to be supported. I will take the advice of the clerk as to whether the prohibition on Senator Hanson having the call to speak impacts her ability to lodge an MPI, but then, assuming it goes ahead, I will give the call to Senator Roberts. I'll take that advice now. Senator Roberts, you have the call.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As a servant to the great state of Queensland and Australia, I stand to speak to this matter and to again congratulate the Australian people on their overwhelming rejection of the divisive Voice to Parliament at the October referendum. It was more than a rejection of the Albanese Voice referendum. It was a rejection of the entire Uluru statement—all 26 pages of it. It was a rejection of a treaty and so-called truth-telling—or, more accurately, a rewrite of history with an eye on financial settlements funded by non-Indigenous taxpayers. It was a rejection of identity politics, grievance politics, virtue signalling and the activist cult of victimhood. Primarily, it was a rejection of racial division.</para>
<para>One of the most racially divisive features of modern discourse in Australia is welcome to country ceremonies, along with acknowledgements of country. Australians, including many Indigenous people, are sick and tired of them. We've had a gutful. People are sick of being told Australia is not their country, which is what these things effectively do. Supposed welcomes and acknowledgements deny the citizenship and sovereignty held equally by all Australians. They perpetuate the falsehood that nations existed on this continent prior to 1788. They didn't. This is a foreign notion, an activist device imported from Canada that does not reflect the reality of Australian history. The High Court confirmed that with a similar statement in 2020.</para>
<para>I remind the Senate of the promise made by leading Voice campaigner Marcia Langton: no more welcomes to country if the Voice was rejected. We can only hope this promise is lived up to. Federal taxpayers forked out at least $45,000 for these rituals in the previous financial year, although I understand the figure could be much higher, as not every government department has come clean on what they spend. It's not even a pre-settlement ritual for most Aborigines. It was invented in 1976 by Ernie Dingo and Richard Walley. I acknowledge Narungga elder Kerry White, from South Australia, a great contributor to the 'no' campaign, who said these rituals are not even being used correctly. She said last year that they should be reserved for Indigenous people welcoming other Indigenous people to local country and that their use by non-Indigenous Australians was just virtue signalling. She wasn't wrong about the virtual signalling, that's for sure. Ms White said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… they've taken our ceremonial process and demeaned it by throwing it out there every day in every aspect of what Australian people do. And I think that is culturally wrong.</para></quote>
<para>That was an Aboriginal woman saying that. She even said welcomes to country were an attack on Indigenous culture and disrespectful of Aboriginals and their culture, and that it was patronising and paternalistic to adopt them without understanding them. People saying this do not even understand what it means.</para>
<para>I also acknowledge another Indigenous leader of the 'no' campaign, Senator Nampijinpa Price, who said recently that welcomes to country were 'definitely divisive'. Those are her words: 'definitely divisive'. I'm confident there's a complete lack of care and a contempt for Aboriginals. People are too lazy to bother to listen and understand the needs of Aboriginals. That has to set back the Aboriginal movement. I am confident I speak for the majority of Australians in saying I wish Professor Langton had included acknowledgements of country too. They're recited at the beginning of every parliamentary sitting, every council meeting and every Zoom meeting held by public servants. We hear them at the conclusion of every domestic flight. You can hear the groans in the cabin every time. They have effectively lost all meaning for their constant repetition. At a conference in Mackay, an interstate speaker stood up and said a welcome to country for the people in Canberra because she came from Canberra and a welcome to country for the people in Mackay.</para>
<para>To foster national unity and to help put an end to racial division in this country, it's time to leave Aboriginal rituals to Aboriginal Australians. One Nation is supremely confident we speak for the majority of all Australians, regardless of race, when we call for an end to welcomes to and acknowledgements of country. We know that, for many, the promise of an end to them motivated their vote in the Voice referendum. We call on this parliament, all other Australian parliaments, all government departments and every local government in this nation to stop signalling the virtues you don't possess and stop dividing this country by abusing these Aboriginal rituals. Start showing respect for the Aboriginal culture in Australia. Australians don't want this virtue signalling. Australians don't want racial division. They said that most emphatically on 14 October at the referendum. Let's move forward together under one flag as one people in one nation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[Yanyuwa language not transcribed]. Thank you for enabling me to speak in my language, the language of the Yanyuwa people, which is one of hundreds of First Nations languages in this country. What I said was to acknowledge that I am a Yanyuwa woman. I am of the li-antha wirriyarra, which is the sea country people of the north, and from Borroloola, and I pay my respects to all present.</para>
<para>I am absolutely appalled by the motion brought forward by One Nation. It is beneath this Senate to even begin to bring in other aspects of the referendum. Let me remind One Nation what the question was. It was:</para>
<quote><para class="block">A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Do you approve this proposed alteration?</para></quote>
<para>Let me remind the Senate that that was the question to all Australians. There was no question around welcome to country ceremonies. There were no questions, despite what this matter that One Nation has brought forward claims, of division or race. There was no question around sovereignty. I have read to the Senate and reminded the Senate what 17 million Australians went to the polling booths to do. What is happening here today is disgraceful.</para>
<para>Over six million Australians supported the question. It was not enough to get the question over the line in the Constitution. Nine million Australians said no. Look at the difference in that. They spoke about a voice to parliament not being enshrined in the Constitution. That did not diminish the need for Closing the Gap to improve the lives of First Nations people. It did not say: 'Remove the languages, remove the culture and remove the kinship of families in this country—of First Nations people.' It did not ask that of Australians. It's an absolute disgrace from One Nation, but then they do have form, don't they? They bring division, even into this Senate. In 2017, when Senator Hanson walked in here with a burqa, it was an absolute disgrace. They're always bringing in stunts, always wanting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McCarthy, personal reflections are disorderly under standing order 193. I ask you to withdraw that and then continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Acting Deputy President Fawcett, when Senator Hanson wore a burqa into the Senate, it was certainly not in the standing orders to do so, and we said so at the time. In fact—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McCarthy, I have asked you to withdraw that imputation. I would ask you just to withdraw, and then you will have the call to continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will do so in the interests of moving forward, but I would kindly remind senators to have a lot at 2017. We've seen times here when there has been a constant need to completely divide this Senate. We've certainly heard that, even in discussions today. So I would say to Australians listening that this matter before the Senate is absolute rubbish. It's a disgrace. It's beneath the Senate to even have this discussion here this afternoon. It shows a complete disregard for the First Nations people in this country, who've been here for over 65,000 years.</para>
<para>Like it or not, we are not going away. If anything, those voices will be even louder. I'm just reminding all senators, and I thank the millions of Australians who came out in support. I thank my colleagues who came out in support. I thank the Greens. I certainly thank those in the other house who came out in support.</para>
<para>It was a very simple request by First Nations people who gathered on Anangu country just asking to be heard. And guess who's the most disappointed in this? It's the three per cent that it impacted in this country. The other 97 per cent in this country can move on and get on with their lives. But for that three per cent the hurt is really deep. But guess what? First Nations people have been disappointed before, and we keep coming back.</para>
<para>I remind the Senate: please, all of you, all senators, let's watch out for the language that we use. One Nation, you won the referendum. Did you really need to bring this on?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McCarthy, please address your remarks through the chair.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on this matter of public importance that has been brought before the Senate by Senator Hanson and One Nation. It's obviously entirely Senator McCarthy's absolute right to come in here and say what she has said. She says that she's appalled and disgraced by this motion, and she's outlined her reasons for that. But I do disagree on one point.</para>
<para>A government senator: Now there's a but!</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No. With respect, I'd like to be heard in silence. I think it is important that we are able to have debates in this place in, of course, a respectful way, a way that doesn't demean the significance of the issue. As someone who has spent a lot of my career working alongside Aboriginal people, particularly in Western Australia, helping them to improve their lives and to see transformation across the community, I've seen an erosion of the significance of the welcome to country and the acknowledgement of country because of their overuse. I'm not the only person who would say this. In fact, throughout the debate about the Voice, Noel Pearson said that there actually does need to be a discussion about their use, so I think it is entirely appropriate that we come in here and have a discussion about their use. There does need to be some discussion. My view is that it is overused. There may be a place for them at significant events. When you go to a citizenship ceremony and there's a welcome to country or an acknowledgement of country, I think that's an entirely appropriate sort of place—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cox, you are well aware of the standing orders. Senators are entitled to be heard in silence. The reason we have a chamber like this is so that people within Australia who have different views can be heard in silence, which is showing respect to the diversity of views. You expect to be heard in silence. I'd request that you respect the standing orders.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Of course, we don't all have to agree. It's my view that we should be able to have a discussion about this, because I think it's undermining.</para>
<para>I want to tell a very short story. My son is 15 years of age. When he was about seven years of age, we were in Brisbane together. We were over there for holidays, and I took him along to a NAIDOC event at Musgrave Park. As we were walking towards the park—from the centre of town it's probably a good 20- or 25-minute walk—my son said to me, 'Dad, I wish I was Aboriginal.' I said to him: 'Why is that, mate? Why do you say that?' He said: 'How cool would it be to have been here for that long—the very first Australians!' I thought of that saying, 'Out of the mouth of babes.' Here is a young boy, who I've tried to raise to respect our culture and to respect the history of this nation. Without me putting that in his head, he has acknowledged the significance of the role that Aboriginal people have played in the history of this country. I said to him: 'Son, that is your history, too. You are Australian. You should be proud, as you are, of the aspects of the culture of this nation.'</para>
<para>I think it is right that we have a debate about these sorts of things. It's important that we don't create an environment in this country where some Australians are deriding the importance of acknowledging our long culture and history, which Indigenous people have and bring into this place. This is something that we can all share in, that we can all play a part in. As I said, I think there is an overuse of the acknowledgements. When you go into a videoconference, you've got seven or eight people from around the country and each of them feels like they have to do the acknowledgement of the place where they are. It takes a big part out of the meeting. That was the point that Noel Pearson was making only a few weeks ago, when he was talking about the fact that it can interrupt. We should be able to recognise the significance of Aboriginal people and their history and the role their ancestors have played in caring for this country, but we shouldn't do it in a way that derides it.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COX</name>
    <name.id>296215</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>[Noongar language] Nih, ng-ung karn-arn, ka-ya-koorl Ngunnawal wer Ngambri boodja wer ng-ung waan-gk—kaya ng-ung moort, koor-a boordiya moort, yey boor-diya moort wer yirra koor-liny boor-diya moort. I want to acknowledge and pay my respects to the stolen lands, on which we meet today, that belong to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples of this area. I pay my respects to their elders, past and present, and I want to acknowledge their emerging leaders, who we nurture, love and support, for the future generations who will continue our legacies.</para>
<para>I rise to completely and wholeheartedly reject this motion and the foul hatred that sits at the core of it. Even after my relatively short time in this place, I'm not at all surprised to see One Nation putting forward this racially divisive garbage. Need I remind this place that you are all here on stolen land? This land was taken by force, brutal violence and dispossession. That's written into our history, and it's the reason why we all stand every morning in this place to acknowledge country before we start the day. And it is the respectful thing to do when you are entering a place that is not yours. You don't walk into somebody else's house without being welcomed in—in fact, to do so is a crime, so maybe this is in fact a crime scene. It is a sign of respect to the rightful custodians of this country, something that I think a lot of people in this place could learn a thing or two about.</para>
<para>A lot of people were saying that the racist lies that the 'no' campaign was spewing would embolden people right across the country, and this is exactly what we are seeing. This motion is a prime example, and unfortunately we had another example in this place earlier today.</para>
<para>Another example I want to share happened back in my home state of Western Australia where the Boyup Brook shire council has, shamefully, rejected a proposal to have the Blackwood River referred to by its traditional name. My grandmother was born on the banks of this river, and it holds deep significance for the First Peoples of this area. Dual naming doesn't take away anything from anybody; it only adds knowledge and recognition of those who came before us. It has been done in many other countries across the world, including New Zealand and Ireland. At a City of Bunbury council meeting, they had a debate recently about updating their welcome and acknowledgement statements, in which one councillor said it would take away their freedoms and another said they didn't want to recognise it for those who weren't pure in soul and heart. Go and take a look at some of the comments on social media posts of prominent black advocates, and come back and tell me that we are the divisive ones in this country. If you don't respect us, just say so. Own it. Let the Australian people see who you really are, but don't you dare stand in here and try and tell me that a cultural practice that First Peoples have been honouring for tens of thousands of years is a problem here.</para>
<para>This is precisely why we need truth-telling processes in this country. Everyone in this country needs to know what this country was built on—the attempted genocide, the frontier wars and the massacres. And make no mistake: this did not stop at 1901. We have seen the dispossession and the oppression continue to this day, with the stolen generations, the Northern Territory Intervention, and the destruction of our cultural heritage and our sacred sites, just to name a few. An acknowledgement of country is the least that people can do. It's like walking into a room and acknowledging people who are already there. Not to do this is just damned ignorance. Time and time again, First Nations people have been knocked down. Time and time again, we've picked ourselves up, and we continue to fight for our rights in this country. That is what we have to do. We simply have no other option. This motion is in fact just another weak attempt to try and lay the boots into blackfellas, post this referendum.</para>
<para>I tell you what: we ain't laying down any time soon. Like our ancestors, we will keep fighting and we will keep rising up. Our sovereignty has never been ceded. We are still here despite the best efforts of successive governments. Terra nullius has been overthrown. Eddie Mabo fought hard to make sure of this, and he took it to the highest court in this country. The Western legal system has been unable to understand that we have been here for tens of thousands of years and to acknowledge the connections that we have to the lands, waters and skies that make up the place we now know as Australia. I will not let this hard work and the hard work of so many First Nations people across this country who fight for our rights, our land, our waters and our culture be overshadowed by the continual narrative to destroy our natural resistance. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BABET</name>
    <name.id>300706</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise in support of Senator Hanson's matter of public importance. As a proud Australian, just like Senator Hanson, I believe that we should do all that we can to unite our beautiful nation. I love Australia, and I will proudly fight to preserve my home for future generations. On 14 October, what happened? The Australian people overwhelmingly voted to reject the government's plan to permanently enshrine an Indigenous Voice to Parliament within our Constitution. Every single state resoundingly voted no against this proposal. But senators would be mistaken if they think that this was merely a vote against constitutional change. It was more than that. This was a vote against racial division. This was a wholesale rejection of continuous efforts to divide Australians by race. On 14 October, Australians got to say, in the privacy of a ballot box, what they unfortunately dare not say in public because of fear of far-left, Marxist extremists.</para>
<para>It's true that Australians sit politely through welcome to country ceremonies, but I'm sure everybody is thinking the same thing: why are we being welcomed to our own home? It is as nonsensical as it is insulting. We privately mock public officials who get up one after the other in a conga line of political correctness, trotting out the acknowledgement of country. 'Elders past and present'—what does that even mean?</para>
<para>No-one even knows who they are. Not even the person regurgitating the acknowledgement knows who they are. Half the time, there aren't even any Indigenous people in the room—elders or otherwise. And what if there were? Are we really wanting a country where your family lineage rather than your individual achievements establishes your importance? Is that the sort of society that we all want?</para>
<para>My favourite part of the acknowledgement of country is the salute to elders emerging. What does that even mean? I'm not trying to make fun of Indigenous people. It's not me who's mocking them; it's the acknowledgement of country that mocks Indigenous people, because it insists that the most important thing about an Indigenous person is their skin colour rather than their character or their achievement. This is wrong. It's insulting to Indigenous people; it's insulting to non-Indigenous people.</para>
<para>On 14 October, more than 60 per cent of Australians said, 'Enough'—enough of being welcomed to the country in which many of us were born or now call home; enough of the acknowledgement of country as if we are hundreds of countries rather than just one, Australia; and enough of this divisive, pointless undermining of equality by insisting at the beginning of every government function that all Australians are equal, except that some, by virtue of race, are more equal than others. The people of Australia have sent a clear message to their political leaders—to us in this place. They don't want a nation divided by race. It's as simple as that. God knows, there is enough to divide people around the world right now without public officials coming up with new ways to separate rather than unite the nation. How foolish is it, then, for federal and state governments to continue these divisive rituals?</para>
<para>I support Senator Hanson's proposals for these ceremonies to be ditched—I do. In an increasingly fractured world, federal, state and local politicians should be looking for ways to unite this country. Federal and state politicians should be emphasising what we share in common rather than what makes us different. To begin every single public meeting by pointing to differences is not only contrary to the will of the Australian people but, I think, dangerous. A house divided will not stand. It's that simple. I call upon my colleagues in this place to stop dividing our nation. Our national anthem begins with this:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Australians all let us rejoice,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">For we are one and free …</para></quote>
<para>One—not many—and that's what I want for Australia. That is what we must all want and promote. God bless Australia!</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I fear that at the core of this proposal is a deep insecurity about who we are as a country—an aversion to coming to terms with our past and being able to acknowledge the brutal dispossession of a land inhabited for 60,000-plus years by hundreds and hundreds of generations and the massacres that occurred that we do not talk about. Of course, you and I didn't do that. We weren't there, but we're here now, and we choose how to be part of a country that is grappling with its past, as we saw in the referendum.</para>
<para>There are First Nations people alive today who were ripped from their families and stopped from speaking their languages. An acknowledgement of country is a sign of respect to those people and to this continent's first people. As an immigrant—I've only been here 20 years or so—I think it is such an incredibly generous thing for First Nations people across the country, who have been subjected to what they have been, to still be willing to welcome gatherings and to bring their culture and say: 'This is all of our country. Welcome.'</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time for the discussion has expired.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>86</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Senate will now consider the proposal from Senator Dean Smith:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">High inflation makes life difficult for everyone, damages the functioning of the economy, erodes the value of savings, hurts household budgets, makes it harder for businesses to plan and invest, and worsens income inequality, which demonstrates the urgent need for the Albanese Labor Government to come up with a plan to get inflation under control.</para></quote>
<para>Is consideration of the proposal supported?</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in time with the informal arrangements made by the whips.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>After having taken their eyes off the ball for the last 17 months, the government is now presented with a very, very serious economic challenge. When it was elected in May 2022, Australians made the decision that they trusted the new government to address matters that would be front and centre for many ordinary Australians. Unfortunately for those Australians, the first 17 months of this government has been squandered, and now the country's biggest economic challenge is bearing down on Australian families—bearing down on them as many of them would be preferring to get ready for Christmas.</para>
<para>Yesterday's decision to increase interest rates, the 12th interest rate increase under this government, has added significant pressure to many Australian families. They are living with cost-of-living pressures that are being driven by an inflation problem that is close to being out of control, and I will come to the comments of the new governor and the board of the RBA in making their decision in a few moments. In question time today the government was asked two important questions. It was asked what it is doing to decrease aggregate demand in the economy—because by decreasing aggregate demand you put genuine downward pressure on inflation. And the acting Leader of the Government in the Senate was asked what the level of mortgage stress being experienced across our country is. On both of those really important questions the answers were underwhelming and, some would argue, weren't even answered with any sincerity.</para>
<para>I think it's very important that we remind ourselves why it is that inflation is so dangerous, because for many Australians they will not recall the last time we had high levels of inflation. Inflation must be tackled as the most important economic challenge because it erodes people savings, it damages the economy, it makes it hard for businesses to plan and prepare for growth, and, most importantly, it hurts the poor disproportionately. It is the poor in our communities that pay the highest price if the government doesn't tackle the inflation challenge.</para>
<para>We've heard a lot in the last week or so about the independence of the RBA. I think it's important to think about that independence. What that independence actually means is that the RBA makes its own independent assessment and judgement on the performance of the economy through one lens, and that is whether or not inflation is operating within that two to three per cent band. Whether or not inflation is in that band is the result of a number of factors, but the greatest factor, the most important factor, is what the government of the day is doing to make sure inflation is operating within that two to three per cent band. When the RBA exercises its independent assessment of what the government is doing and whether the government is doing enough to control inflation, that is the independence. It is an independent judgement about whether enough is being done to control inflation. When you've had 12 interest rate rises since May 2022, the answer to the question, 'Is the government doing enough to control inflation?' has to be no.</para>
<para>We were told by the Treasurer, Dr Chalmers, that the inflation problem was caused by Ukraine. We have then been told that the inflation problem has been caused by the war in the Middle East. On the weekend, he said the inflation problem was caused by state governments and excessive infrastructure spending.</para>
<para>On what day will Dr Chalmers, the Treasurer, accept responsibility for what is happening in our economy with regard to inflation? All the commentators are now saying this is a home-grown inflation challenge. The RBA statement when it lifted the rate on Melbourne Cup day said that inflation 'is still too high and is proving more persistent than expected a few months ago.' It went on to say that 'prices of many services are continuing to rise briskly.' It went on to say that 'progress looks to be slower than earlier expected' in keeping inflation within the two to three per cent band. The government must do more.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senators will note that the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard </inline>doesn't record silence! Senator O'Neill.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'NEILL</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you very much, Senator Smith. I've always regarded you as one of the gentlemen in this place, and you've just proven you're up to the task of not only completing a speech but jumping in to make sure the Senate continues and to give me an opportunity to respond to what you said. I'm going to talk about Senator Smith in absentia in your role over there and not to you as the chair, because I do want to make a few comments on the contribution that you've just made in this matter of public importance.</para>
<para>I do want to note here in the chamber with some concern that Senator Smith seems to have spent the past 18 months completely oblivious to the work of the Albanese government in tackling the inflation that does so regretfully hurt the pockets of Australia's hardest workers. That's what inflation is. It's not a vague measure of economic performance. It's a real number that eats into the wages of working Australians, and it does that when they fuel up, when they buy groceries and when they buy life-saving medicine.</para>
<para>Unfortunately, Senator Smith has missed the $23 billion the Albanese government has been delivering to everyday Australians to assist them through this time. Where was Senator Smith when we saved Australians $180 million on prescriptions? Where was Senator Smith when we supported 11.6 million Australians to see a GP with no out-of-pocket costs? Where was Senator Smith when we were saving families $1,700 a year on child care? I can tell you where Senator Smith was: he was with all of his colleagues, and they were opposing all of that support for the Australian people. They said no.</para>
<para>If the senator wants to talk inflation, let's talk factually about inflation. This is not happening in Australia in isolation. This is a global phenomenon, and no amount of wishing it were otherwise can actually create a debate that is based on fact in this place. The illegal invasion of Ukraine threw global markets into chaos everywhere and put serious inflationary pressure on a number of essential goods right across the world. By March of that year, inflation had hit 5.1 per cent and, when the Albanese government took power, it inherited inflation at a rate of 6.1 per cent. On top of that, the crisis in the Middle East and oil production cuts have continued to hit Australians already doing it tough, but in September of this year inflation dropped to 5.4 per cent, and that is because, while the coalition members and senators in this place whinge and whine, the Albanese government has been delivering for Australians. While global energy prices are soaring. the Australian Bureau of Statistics says that we've brought household rate rises down from the estimated 18.6 per cent to just 4.2 per cent. Our inflation-tackling policies have brought child care down 13.2 per cent instead of people with kids in care experiencing a 6.7 per cent increase without support.</para>
<para>These things really do help the Australians who are most vulnerable through the crisis that we're facing, along with all those who participate in the global economy.</para>
<para>Senator Smith asked when the Albanese government is going to deliver a plan for inflation. Let's be clear that part of that is tackling it responsibly, while looking after Australians. A $23 billion plan has already brought the inflation rate down by ½ per cent, and I do recall that Senator Smith may well have been with me at estimates—not the most recent one, but the previous one—when that was the evidence of the former Reserve Bank governor. The Albanese government's economic policies have received the endorsement of the International Monetary Fund, and the RBA is acknowledging the important work that the government is doing in containing inflation. All of that has been done while we have delivered a budget surplus that the previous government, the coalition, couldn't manage, even after 10 years of tightening the belts of working Australians.</para>
<para>We know that the LNP— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, here we are: rents going through the roof, mortgages going through the roof, the price of food going through the roof, the price of essential services going through the roof and millions of Australians struggling to make ends meet—struggling to afford the basic necessities of life. And what's the government doing? What is Labor doing about this? Firstly, they're allowing the RBA to put up interest rates continually and thereby punishing the people who are not actually the cause of the inflation that's happening in Australia.</para>
<para>I say that Labor is 'allowing' the RBA to do this because, of course, section 11 of the RBA Act 1959 gives Labor, gives the government of the day, the power to override the RBA on policy matters like interest rate rises. Labor is not only refusing to use this power but proposing to abolish that power—to give it away—in one of the final surrenders to neoliberalism in this country. It's an absolute disgrace! Labor has to do more; it has to override the RBA and stop the RBA putting up interest rates. It has to back in renters, mortgage holders and ordinary Australians, who are struggling to make ends meet, by overriding the RBA and putting in place a corporate super profits tax that would make it harder for the big corporates to engage in profiteering and price gouging.</para>
<para>The cost of Labor's stage 3 tax cuts is an astonishing $313 billion over a decade: $313 billion, with more than half of the benefit of those stage 3 tax cuts going to the top 10 per cent of income earners. Those earning more than $200,000 a year will get a tax cut of nearly 10 grand a year but people on less than $45,000 will get nothing. Bankers, CEOs, federal parliamentarians, doctors and lawyers will get nearly $10,000 per year while people who are struggling to make ends meet will get nothing from the stage 3 tax cuts. How can Labor proceed with these stage 3 tax cuts for the top end while millions of Australians are getting smashed by rent increases, mortgage increases and the major supermarket chains gouging food prices, making it all the harder for people to make ends meet? Shame on Labor!</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Treasurer has said two things on the matter of inflation in recent times. The first thing the Treasurer has said is that it is someone else's fault, that these are global factors. As Senator Smith said in his contribution, this is now an Australian problem—and it's an Australian problem because we know that the government is putting more money than it should into the economy, and that is adding to demand.</para>
<para>We also know that, compared to other jurisdictions that we generally compare ourselves to—our peers abroad—we have much higher inflation.</para>
<para>Steve Hamilton, who is a good economist, said in the <inline font-style="italic">Financial Review</inline> back in June that, after more than a year of government and amid the Reserve Bank's efforts, which included raising rates by another quarter of a per cent on Tuesday, 'the government's claims that this is all someone else's fault are increasingly untenable'. If they were untenable in June, they're absolutely ridiculous now, in November. Yesterday, Mr Chalmers said in his statements to the press that the government was helping the RBA, which I think is a very interesting turn of phrase because, of course, if he were helping the RBA, then he would be running a contractionary fiscal stance. The government has three options. They could be running an expansionary stance, they could be running a neutral stance or they could be running a contractionary stance. The position that the RBA would prefer—given that it's raising rates and smashing mortgage holders—is to have the government run its fiscal policy in line with the monetary policy and, therefore, run it as a contractionary position.</para>
<para>When Michele Bullock, the new governor, was at estimates last week, I was able to ask the new governor: What is the government's position here? What is fiscal policy in Australia doing? Is it expansionary, is it neutral or is it contractionary? Ms Bullock said that it is neutral. So the government is running a neutral position when it needs to be crimping the budget. It needs to be running a contractionary fiscal stance. We know from table 3.2 in the budget, which outlines the new spending decisions that have been taken, that Chalmers is spending $14 billion on new decisions in this current financial year.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Bragg, I would just remind you to refer to people in the other place by their correct titles.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Chalmers is spending $14 billion in this year—a cumulative total in new decisions taken in the most recent budget of $42 billion. So the government is running at least a neutral—or perhaps an expansionary—fiscal position. The budget papers tell us that, and the Reserve Bank has underlined that with its statements to the Senate last week. Why is this the case? I believe this is the case because, no matter how well intentioned the government may be, the government is unable to say no to its favourite vested interest. It's unable to turn off the spending tap, and it's been unable to stop delivering policy only for their fellow travellers and the rent-seekers and the bloodsuckers that run the Labor Party's preselections and man their polling places. The policy support that the vested interests of the unions and super funds get is backed up by the Commonwealth budget, because the Commonwealth budget is engineered to support their vested interests.</para>
<para>Unfortunately, the people paying the price for Labor's inability to say no are the mortgage holders. Around one-third of Australians have got a mortgage, and these people are paying the price. We are not headed in the right direction here. It's all about the trajectory. If the budget position were contractionary, then you could imagine that the Reserve Bank would be able to stop what it's doing. But I believe that, sadly, the Reserve Bank is going to be forced to continue to increase rates because the Commonwealth government is sticking more and more money into the economy because it can't say no to the unions and all the other bloodsuckers and rent-seekers that are part of the modern Australian Labor Party's movement. The reality is that we are stuck with having stubbornly high inflation. While our competitors around the world are able to manage inflation, we are stuck in the lane of having persistently high inflation, which is going to hurt all mortgage holders in Australia.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We know that Australian households and businesses are doing it tough right now. Whether it's global cuts to oil production, the war in Ukraine or the conflict in the Middle East, the challenges coming at us from around the world are being felt around the kitchen tables of hardworking Australians.</para>
<para>That is why addressing inflation is the centrepiece of our economic policy. We are making responsible economic decisions while targeting spending at those Australians who need it most. We're making the responsible decision to reorient the budget from wasteful spending to productive spending; we're making the responsible decision to bank the first surplus in 15 years, returning revenues to the budget bottom line; and we've made the responsible decision to have infrastructure spending independently reviewed so that we can ensure that infrastructure is deliverable, provides value for money and is targeted at those projects that Australians need.</para>
<para>You don't have to take my word for it, and you don't have to take the word of anyone on this side of the chamber about this, because the International Monetary Fund has backed the Albanese government's responsible budget management and highlighted our policies to address cost-of-living pressures. The IMF have concluded independently that fiscal and monetary policy are working together to address inflationary pressures. Michele Bullock, recently appointed Governor of the Reserve Bank, said the same. Indeed, it feels like I was at a different round of Senate estimates hearings to the one my colleague the deputy chair of the Senate economics committee was at. That's because Governor Bullock was asked by Senator Hume at estimates two weeks ago what more government could be doing in fiscal policy, and these were the words Governor Bullock responded with:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I actually think that what they're doing at the moment is good.</para></quote>
<para>When Senator Hume asked if it was 'enough', the governor responded that indeed it was enough and that the decision to bank revenue and not spend it was very positive and, in fact, helpful. I'll repeat those words from Governor Bullock:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I actually think that what they're doing at the moment is good.</para></quote>
<para>The causes of inflation are well known at household tables around the country: war and, most recently, petrol prices and broken supply chains, which have been caused in no small part by a wasted decade from those opposite, who decided to throw manufacturing off a cliff and stop making things here instead of backing it in and investing in it. That's why we haven't wasted a day in investing in rebuilding Australian manufacturing by investing in the National Reconstruction Fund and in training and skills to address skills shortages across the economy. As the Treasurer said on budget night, our task was to restrain spending to check inflation while doing our best to help people struggling to make ends meet. Our cost-of-living package was targeted to do just that, being a comprehensive plan that's delivering around $23 billion of support targeted to where it's needed most, from electricity bill relief to cheaper child care, rent assistance, Medicare bulk-billing, cheaper medicines, income support payments, fee-free TAFE, more affordable homes, expanding paid parental leave and getting wages moving again. Just this month, we've tripled bulk-billing incentives to support 11.6 million eligible Australians, including children, pensioners and other concession card holders, to access a GP with no out-of-pocket costs. We know that the relief is working. ABS data shows that, without our energy rebates, prices in the September quarter would have been 14 per cent higher. The cost of child care has come down in the same quarter and, without our efforts, would have risen by 6.7 per cent.</para>
<para>Whether it's the RBA governor, the Treasury secretary, the ABS or the IMF, they all point to economic policy helping to drive down inflation. We are taking a strong and measured approach, we are getting the budget back on track, we are returning revenues to the bottom line and we're targeting much-needed cost-of-living relief to those who need it the most. The experts tell us that it is working. Our economic plan is delivering. So we will continue to invest sustainably in the future and provide the sensible economic management that the country needs.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator TYRRELL</name>
    <name.id>300639</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Rising interest rates are a new hit on top of an already painful situation. The basics—water, power, home loans and groceries—are all on the up, squeezing household budgets to the brink, and, for those on Centrelink, all your choices are hard choices. The government needs to be clever about saving where it can while also easing the cost of living. It needs cheap ways to help people pay their bills. Here's a tip for immediate action: stop taxing JobSeeker payments. These Centrelink payments tick up a bit every so often due to indexing, but they're still taxed as income. Previously this wasn't an issue because a year on JobSeeker didn't push you over the tax-free threshold, but the tax-free limit isn't indexed like payments are, so for over a decade these tiny increases have nudged the base rate of JobSeeker up and up.</para>
<para>What's the result? A single renter on JobSeeker will lose the equivalent of two weeks of payment to income tax this financial year. They'll have to navigate the maze of a tax return, and the government will have to chase them up if they don't. There are costs there for both parties in time, energy and cash. You won't find many people excited about paying an accountant out of their JobSeeker money. This isn't going to raise a lot of money from any one person, but, for any one person being hit by it, it's devastating. Ask those making far less than the 99 per cent of the nation how they feel about losing nearly a thousand dollars due to nonsensical policy. And that's what this is; it's a policy misstep that hits the poorest, making them even poorer over a sum that the government wouldn't bother to bend over to pick up from the floor. The government could take a bit of heat out of the cost-of-living crisis for hundreds of thousands of the poorest Australians with a simple fix. If pensions aren't taxed, why is JobSeeker?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUGHES</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It seems extraordinary to me, with the pain that families are experiencing at the moment, that members of the government, those opposite, are continuing to get up and tell us how great everything's going. Nothing's their fault, obviously! We know they have absolutely no sense of propriety or honesty when it comes to looking in the mirror, but, according to them, everything's going great—it's all going great guns. Their economic plan's fantastic. Everything's working well. Everyone's cheering them on. Why don't you just tell Australians that they just should shut up and stop whinging because they've got it so great under the Albanese government? It is just extraordinary that this government is continuing to cause so much pain through its ideologically driven agenda. It spends taxpayers' money like it is going out of fashion, with no transparency and no detail.</para>
<para>We heard Senator Farrell today say that they're going to be in government for a really, really long time. And I can tell you that that sent a shiver up the spine of millions of Australians, because I think the 32 per cent of Australians who voted to put this government in may be starting to get a little bit of buyer's remorse. It is just unbelievable to come in here and consistently say, 'We're doing fantastic job tackling inflation. We're doing a fantastic job,' and say, on childcare fees, 'They're saving so much money.' But you obviously don't read any papers or go and talk to anyone, because you'll hear from those that utilise child care—and that's not every Australian—that what your rebate increase did was actually push fees up. The centres pocket the rebate, and families are paying either the same or more. This has not really delivered very much for many families at all.</para>
<para>We just heard from Senator Walsh about the energy prices and that the energy prices could have been up 14 per cent higher—not just the fact that they already are up by at least 13 per cent, if not more when you come to gas. The fact is that their argument is, 'We know it's up, but it could have been up by more.' This energy relief that they say was such a great boon for households didn't go to all households. It went to a very small group of households. And it was only a one-off payment. It's actually no solution to the rising power prices. We know that's being partly driven by this race to renewables and that they are going with taxes rather than technology as they race towards an ideological zealotry within the renewable sector, absolutely putting the pain onto Australian families.</para>
<para>This is like a fairy floss party that we're seeing in government at the moment. Everything is a bit of a sugar hit and no substance at all.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister, when he is in the country, has nothing to say about the economy. He is consistently running an ideological agenda with his activist mates and corporate associates. He spent $450 million of Australian taxpayer money on a referendum that the Australian people absolutely said no to. It was clear they would say no but he pushed ahead spending that money on an ideological crusade, instead of doing any work to rein in spending.</para>
<para>Yesterday saw the 12th rate rise since this Labor government came to power. These are the highest rates since 2011, back when they were in power last time. It is funny how that pattern seems to continue. A family with an average mortgage of 750,000 now needs to find an extra $24,000 a year—$24,000 a year! The average monthly mortgage repayment when the coalition left office was $2,670. It is now $3,994. That is an increase of 50 per cent. That is how much Australians are hurting. We know when mortgage holders are hurting, rents go up. The median rent for a three-bedroom house nationally was $340 a week; it is now $665. We know that on the East Coast it is a lot higher than that. One hundred and fifty dollars used to get you quite a few bags of groceries. You'll be lucky to get two now. Families have to make choices, not about whether or not they go on an overseas holiday; they are now having to decide if their kids can continue to do sport. But don't worry, you guys are telling us you are doing everything you can and, apparently, it is all tickety boo in Labor land.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That will conclude the debate on the matter public important because the time for discussion has expired.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>91</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Scrutiny of Bills Committee</title>
          <page.no>91</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Scrutiny Digest</title>
            <page.no>91</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ASKEW</name>
    <name.id>281558</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Dan Smith, I present <inline font-style="italic">Scrutiny Digest 13</inline> of 2023 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills together with ministerial correspondence. I move that the Senate take note of the report and seek leave to incorporate the tabling statement into <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The statement read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">As Chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, I rise to speak to the tabling of the committee's <inline font-style="italic">Scrutiny Digest 13 of 2023</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Digest contains the committee's assessment of all bills recently introduced into the Parliament.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Scrutiny Digest 13 of 2023</inline> reports on the committee's consideration of 14 bills which were introduced into the Parliament between the 16th and the 20th of October. The committee has identified scrutiny concerns in relation to 6 newly introduced bills.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I would like to draw the Senate's attention in particular to the committee's comments on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 (the Fair Work Bill)and the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill 2023 (the Hate Symbols Bill).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In relation to the Fair Work Bill, the committee is concerned that certain powers in the bill will be infringing upon this Parliament's ability to maintain oversight of the executive's actions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The bill provides that a number of determinations made by the Fair Work Commission will be legislative instruments which are exempt from disallowance. Disallowance is the primary means by which the Parliament exercises control over the legislative power that it has delegated to the executive. As such, the committee is requesting the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations' advice as to why this exemption is appropriate. Similarly, the committee has noted that the bill provides for digital labour platform deactivation code and road transport industry termination codes to be made by legislative instrument. These are significant matters being set out in delegated legislation that is not subject to the same full range of parliamentary scrutiny applies to primary legislation. The committee has also requested the minister's advice as to the necessity and appropriateness of leaving these matters to delegated legislation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The committee is also concerned that aspects of the bill trespasses on personal rights and liberties. The committee has commented on a number of provisions that raise concerns including: the imposition of penalties on conduct undertaken prior to commencement of the bill; significant penalties for offences with strict and absolute liability elements; the abrogation of the privilege against self-incrimination; and procedural fairness. These matters relate to fundamental common law rights that should only be limited in exceptional circumstances. The committee has requested the minister's detailed advice as to the necessity and appropriateness of these provisions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The committee has also reiterated its concerns regarding the Hate Symbols Bill in a response entry following correspondence received from the Attorney-General. In <inline font-style="italic">Scrutiny Digest 9 of 2023</inline>, the committee noted that the bill raised a number of concerns relating to trespasses on personal rights and liberties.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">These included various reversed evidential burdens which require the defendant to adduce evidence as to certain matters. At common law, it is ordinarily the duty of the prosecution to prove all elements of an offence beyond reasonable doubt, and these reversed evidential burdens of proof subvert this important common law protection.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The committee also raised concerns in relation to provisions that are drafted in broad terms that may result in the criminalisation of ordinary behaviours. In this Digest, the committee has requested the Attorney-General's further justification as to the imposition of reversed evidential burdens and the use of broad offence provisions that are not defined with sufficient specificity, such as the term 'access'.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Additionally, the committee remains concerned at the increasing trend of limiting parliamentary oversight. This Parliament should be concerned that instruments made under the bill proscribing terrorist organisations are exempt from sunsetting. The committee has again asked the minister to justify this exemption from sunsetting and the significant limits these place on the ability of parliament to review subsequent instruments. Disallowance is an effective tool but exempting instruments from sunsetting means that parliament is only limited to a single opportunity for scrutiny.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">On that note, the committee has also drawn this matter to the attention of the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">With these comments, I commend the committee's <inline font-style="italic">Scrutiny Digest</inline><inline font-style="italic">13 of 2023</inline> to the Senate.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>91</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee</title>
          <page.no>91</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference</title>
            <page.no>91</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It gives me a great deal of sadness to actually rise in the Senate tonight to speak on behalf of the thousands of rural and regional Victorians who have been significantly impacted by the rollout of transmission lines in their communities in and around Ballarat, throughout the Mallee and beyond. There was the lack of consultation with these communities and the riding roughshod over their private property rights with incursions onto farm properties. We know the Victorian Farmers Federation has condemned OzNet's incursion onto farm properties along the Ballarat to Bendigo transmission line. OzNet services workers entered without prior contact or seeking permission from landowners.</para>
<para>It reminds me of when I first arrived in this place. We had coal seam gas companies rocking up to farm properties seeking to enter at will and exploring whether that particular property had resource under it et cetera. There was a great deal of concern among the agricultural communities impacted that these companies were not giving the property owners the basic courtesy of letting them know that they were coming and, in the end, a right of return of a lot of the wealth generated as part of the exploration and development of coal seam gas enterprises on their land. We have moved a long way from those sorry days of 13 years ago.</para>
<para>But to be here in 2023 and have a serious corporation not seeking permission to enter a private property is absolutely unconscionable. There are safety and biosecurity issues associated with individuals and companies entering farmers' properties. It is blatant disregard of property rights, and farmers are rightly sick of it. They do a hard day's work and produce fabulous produce. They want to be prosperous and sustainable into the future, and they expect a level of respect for what they do and for the fact that these are private properties.</para>
<para>Let's face it: the rollout of 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines across this country isn't being equally shared between private property owners and public owners. State and Commonwealth land is not being asked to carry the burden of these transmission lines. It is actually farmers and rural and regional communities—out of sight, out of mind—who are expected to put up with strangers coming on their properties, marking out lines and not checking: 'How is this going to impact your enterprise? Is it better if we spend a little more time and go along the boundaries of your property?' In typical bureaucratic fashion, the quickest way from A to B is a straight line: 'We will carve up your properties with transmission line overhead, over your cattle herds or sheep flocks and right through your horticultural enterprises.'</para>
<para>Farmers aren't asking for a free ride. The agriculture sector in this country signed up to net zero by 2050 before the parliament did as a whole. The beef industry, in particular, signed up to net zero by 2030. So this isn't about the veracity or otherwise of climate change. It is about who has to pay the cost of transition. I've said in this place many, many times—and I will never tire of saying it, because it is the people who have sent me to this place whom I have the great privilege to represent—that it is unconscionable for a government and government entities to seek to penalise one sector of our community over another and to penalise the most marginalised, most vulnerable and poorest sections of our communities. Never mind what it's going to do to food production and prosperity.</para>
<para>I think for us in Victoria this has been quite a potent public debate, particularly in the Ballarat region, for over 18 months, and it is growing across the country as more and more communities are being subjected to not being consulted and to having strangers rock up at family properties—because these aren't just businesses or hay sheds. They are family homes where children are raised and where, often, multiple generations of individuals live. The level of disrespect that has been shown time and time again beggars belief, and it shows what the government really thinks about those of us who don't live in a capital city and who live in National and Liberal Party seats: not a lot. You don't care for our opinions or our consent, and that's why you choose not to consult us, because you feel you don't have to.</para>
<para>That's why men and women from the Mallee in Victoria got up at 1 am to get on a bus and to travel to Canberra to make it very clear to this Prime Minister and, in particular, to his energy minister, Minister Bowen, the devastating impact of their policy, because it seems that—no matter how many submissions or letters they write, how many phone calls, petitions or Facebook pages they produce or how much they contact their local council, their state government, AusNet or AEMO—no-one's listening.</para>
<para>And so they do what so many people in the regions, unfortunately, feel like they have to do: come here to the nation's capital to be seen and to make a ruckus. Bear in mind that making a ruckus isn't their natural character. These are men, women and families who just want to get on with the job at hand, which is producing food. But they don't expect their government to disrespect them in such a way. There's this fury building right across regional Australia, from Ballarat to Port Stephens, Gippsland and the Illawarra. It's out around Tamworth and the New England. Labor are riding roughshod over the Australian people with their ideological agenda to build massive transmission towers across prime agricultural land.</para>
<para>There are better ways to do this, and the least they could do is have the decency to sit down and have a conversation about how to do it in a way that works for all the stakeholders, not just for Minister Bowen. All that this motion seeks to do is to set up a Senate inquiry. We've had some pretty quirky Senate inquiries in my time in this place and this would hardly be the strangest. This would actually be a Senate inquiry that has wide public support—it has been called for by a community which feels it has no voice in this government. That is what this chamber has so often been called on to do: to give a voice and platform to the marginalised and vulnerable in the Australian community—to those who aren't feeling that they're getting a fair go. If the marches in country towns are anything to go by, the fact that these guys and gals will get on buses in the middle of the night to come up here—and these aren't activists! This isn't the Environmental Defenders Office crew. These are not men and women hitting the streets for Palestine every weekend. These are men and women who run small businesses, so it actually costs them money and opportunity to take a day and a half out of their community and off farm to come up here and make sure that this building has heard them. Why? Because this chamber refuses—refuses!—to hold a simple Senate inquiry. It's insane!</para>
<para>We're supposed to be the chamber that gives voice to the Australian public in a proportional way. The variety of Senate inquiries we've had range from coal seam gas to forced adoptions—that was an amazing Senate inquiry that I was on. There was an inquiry on the Murray-Darling Basin and we had huge inquiries into the disability sector before the royal commission. So this chamber and its committees have performed a crucial role in a whole raft of areas in making sure that those who don't have power and agency can be heard, and can have their concerns aired publicly. That's particularly so when powerful entities, such as governments or corporations, are seeking to abuse that power, as is happening in this case.</para>
<para>No-one is arguing that net zero by 2050 isn't going to be a challenge. But what is occurring, increasingly —and, hopefully, there's more cognisance of it in this building—is that the poorest communities in our nation are being asked to pay the most burden. It isn't the suburbs of Canberra that are being crisscrossed by transmission lines and carpeted with solar panels. It's not the suburbs of Brunswick and Fitzroy, or those on the North Shore. It's the communities far away—out of sight and out of mind. I humbly beg this chamber, again, to actually give them a voice and allow us to have a Senate inquiry so that their voices can be heard.</para>
<para>I heard David Jochinke, the newly-elected National Farmers Federation president, talk about the cumulative impact on agriculture of Labor government policy initiatives—policy across governments.</para>
<para>It is not just Minister Watt's biosecurity tax. It is not just Minister King's truckies tax. It is not just Tanya Plibersek's abhorrent abuse of the Murray-Darling Basin plan, even turning her back on the deal that Tony Burke did all those years ago to get everyone on the same page, turning her back on the social and economic devastation that water buybacks and the additional 450 giga litres—which was never part of the plan—will actually have on the basin and on food production. If it's not that, it's this.</para>
<para>Everywhere you look in this government, there are decisions being made that impact on the agriculture sector and take rural and regional communities and our industries for granted like we're always going to be there and we're always going to be doing what we're doing, exporting 70 per cent of what we grow. One in four jobs in this country is as a result of our great status as a trading nation. The Prime Minister is in China this week celebrating ag getting back into China at the very same time that his ministers here at home are making decisions to nobble and cripple that industry. It's not me saying that. It's not the National Party. It is the National Farmers Federation, who very clearly articulated their need to be part of the solution.</para>
<para>Why aren't public landholders carrying the same amount of burden for these transmission lines as private landholders? They are genuine questions. Why won't you consult? Why won't these entities ask permission? These are basic rights, you would have thought, in a liberal democracy such as ours.</para>
<para>I hope we can find a way through. I hope that this chamber will reconsider its obstinance about allowing the men and women that grow our food to have their say through a simple Senate inquiry. We've all been here. We can all bring our usual suspects. The left bring their witnesses, the community bring their witnesses and the opposition bring their witnesses. Everyone gets a say. That is how it should work in this chamber and with our committees, but the fact that this government is refusing to allow the Senate inquiry to occur for these very genuine concerns to be publicly aired and be transparent says a lot about the culture of this government and its faux commitment to transparency and accountability.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RENNICK</name>
    <name.id>283596</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in favour of this motion the very simple reason that this side of the chamber cares about the environment. For so long we've heard that side of the chamber pretend to care about the environment, but, when the rubber hits the road, they go running. And it's not just the environment that we care about. We care about the economy because, without cheap energy, we cannot power the homes and the businesses that provide jobs to the hardworking Australians across the country. It's not just the economy and it's not just the environment; it's about our farmland and about our culture. Most of all, it is about respect: respect of property.</para>
<para>For the benefit of those listening at home, I'll read out what this motion says, because this matters. This is an inquiry into the construction of transmission lines, windmills et cetera across our country: across our farmland, across our oceans, across our national parks. Some of the issues we're going to be looking at are 'the provision and disbursement of compensation under Commonwealth, state and territory governments compulsory access and acquisition'. Compensation is very important. If there's one thing that governments are very good at doing, it's screwing people. It's shafting them.</para>
<para>We do not want to see our farmers, fishermen and whoever else get destroyed by the government. I hear from constituents every day whose government, the bureaucrats, are putting up wall after wall of impediments in their lives. I think that people are more than happy to pay some taxes in return for essential services, but they're not happy for governments to control them to within an inch of their lives.</para>
<para>Another thing that this inquiry wants to look at is identifying best practice approaches to the development and implementation of a national approach to compulsory access. Best practice is something that is sadly lacking in government. The words 'quality assurance' never pass the lips of a bureaucrat. There is only one word that ever comes out of their mouth, and that is the word no. It's not like, 'Yes, we can find a way to do that.' No, it's never that. It's always, 'No, we can't do that.' We just saw it recently in estimates, in the RRAT committee, where we had a bureaucrat on over $900,000 complain that his 2,000 staff had to answer 400 questions over a five-week period. No, that's all too hard. But that's our bureaucracy for you. When it actually comes to serving you, they don't want to know about it, but, when it comes to controlling you, they love it. You can just see them licking their lips.</para>
<para>Another thing this inquiry is going to look at is measures required to secure the rights of landowners, farmers and fisheries to maintain and safeguard the continued productivity of agriculture and fisheries, including emergency management. Can somebody tell me how this doesn't matter? Property rights is a fundamental right of any democracy. This is something that warrants investigation. But, of course, does the Albanese Labor government want transparency? No, of course not. So many times in this chamber, since the Albanese government has come to power, we have asked for the detail and transparency and we have not got it. I know my colleague Senator Duniam wanted quarterly reporting from the Productivity Commission on the cost of energy prices. I was taught this in the private sector: what gets measured gets improved. It's called benchmarking. But does the Albanese government want to measure anything? No, of course not. We asked for the vaccine contracts. Did we get them? No. We asked for the minutes of the National Cabinet. Did we get them? No. We asked for the details of how many nurses are employed in aged-care centres on a 24-hour basis. Did we get that detail? No.</para>
<para>Yet again the Albanese government is running for cover because they know they don't want to actually compensate the farmers and they don't want to compensate our fishermen. These guys are determined to destroy primary and secondary industry in this country. I've said this many times in this chamber. Who can remember the Button plan of 1985 that destroyed manufacturing? And we can replace manufacturing with the Dawkins plan in 1990 where we decided to send everyone to university so they could get a degree. And of course our children today graduate from university broke and brainwashed, without one real-life skill in the world. So now we import everything. We have to go back to our basic values. We have to go back on the tools, and we cannot do that if we destroy our primary industry.</para>
<para>What else we got on here? Personally I think there's enough already, but I'm just going to read some out. There's the interaction and efficiency of compulsory access, secure land rights, best practice, proper compensation and consultation. Consultation—now that's a good idea.</para>
<para>I'll mention Senator Pocock's contribution to this last night. His idea of consultation is for the bureaucrats to have a little committee to look at it, led by a bloke by the name of Andrew Dyer, who was the National Wind Farm Commissioner. This guy has been knee-deep in the renewable subsidy industry for years. The last time I looked, in a democracy, it is the representatives who actually do the scrutiny in this place, not the bureaucrats. As we know from the last referendum, they are completely out of touch with the rest of the country on what really matters. They are the last people that we want looking at this issue.</para>
<para>Speaking of bureaucrats, who could forget my last question to the CSIRO in the recent round of estimates? I asked quite a reasonable question: Which one of the 40 models are we going to use to calculate net zero? That's right—the science is settled, but there are 40 different models. The CSIRO's answer—I can't wait to put this one up on my social media; this is going to run—was: 'That's the great thing about science. You can have 40 different ways of calculating something and you all get the same result.' At that stage, the chair, Senator Walsh, cut me off. I said, 'That's not an answer, Chair.' She said, 'Your time's up.' I would have responded with: 'You do get the same result—that is, the taxpayer being shafted.' They have a right to know which model out of the 40 different models that are out there to calculate net zero Australia is going to use and which models other countries are going to use. We do not want regulatory arbitrage going on here whereby we start gaming the calculations. I know from another set of questions I asked the CSIRO previously that the phytoplankton in the ocean, which absorbs 70 per cent of the world's CO2, doesn't even come into it. How on earth can you calculate your net contribution to carbon dioxide if you're not going to take a look at the full picture, at the entire biodiversity of planet Earth?</para>
<para>I love planet Earth. When I was a young chap, I quit my job and went backpacking around the world. I knocked back a job to work in Switzerland and kept travelling. I went to 85 countries, climbed mountains, scuba dived, surfed—you name it. I love planet Earth. There's probably no-one more qualified in this chamber to tell you how beautiful planet Earth is. Let me tell you something: I do not want to see those dirty, stinking wind turbines littering our coastlines threatening the birds and our whales. I'm following a Facebook page now about Upper New Jersey, where whales are suddenly washing up on the beaches of New Jersey as they are building wind turbines. Has anyone looked at that? We're going to have transmission lines carving out huge scars across the earth's surface. We're going to have massive lithium mines. It's common but it's a very rare commodity. There's a one or two per cent content. Lithium, for example, might be found at one or two per cent. You're going to have to mine 100 tonnes of ore to get one tonne of metal. On top of that, you have stripping ratios. You might have a stripping ratio of 10 to one. So, suddenly, from one tonne of ore you might have to mine a thousand tonnes of dirt. I don't think that's going to be very good for the environment—not at all. Again, in Senate estimates—I love this process—the great Larry Marshall, the former CEO of the CSIRO, said that it costs three times the amount to recycle a battery as it does to actually make it. Funnily enough, the CSIRO don't actually include the cost of recycling in their GenCost report. Here's that modelling again!</para>
<para>When it comes to the real world, we know that those on the other side of the chamber like to deal with feelings and with fantasies. It's interesting, because one of the last things that happened under the last Labor government was that they commissioned an independent peer review of the Bureau of Meteorology. Do you know what they found? I'll tell you what they found. They did not rate the observation practices of the Bureau of Meteorology as world class.</para>
<para>Do you know what an observation practice includes? It is called taking the temperature—measuring the temperature. What did the Bureau of Meteorology do? They thought that if they couldn't measure properly and accurately—because they had a margin of error of plus or minus half a degree Celsius, whereas the world standard for margin of error when you measure temperature is plus or minus 0.2 degrees Celsius—they'd start homogenising data. That's a posh word for basically fiddling the books. As someone who was an accountant once upon a time, if I fiddled the books I'd go to jail.</para>
<para>I want to be careful about the bureau because they've got a climate division and a weather division. The guys in the weather division do what they should be doing, which is measuring and reporting the temperature and doing forecasting. Then you've got the climate division, which is effectively a euphemism for the fearmongering division. The climate division constantly comes up with these big doom and gloom forecasts. I think we heard Senator Whish-Wilson saying, 'If we don't act now it will be too late,' and 'The world is going to come to an end very soon, and if we don't do something it's all going to change.'</para>
<para>Let me tell you that it's not going to change. Even without radiative forcing, the climate is always going to change because the earth spins on its axis every 24 hours, it rotates around the sun every 365 days and it's slightly tilted to its orbit because of the gravity of the moon. We have Milankovitch cycles. Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler discovered in the early 1700s that the earth travels in an ellipse and not an orbit. That means that at certain times of the year the earth is going to be further from the sun than at other times. That creates weather volatility, people. This is life—absorb it and do not be afraid of it.</para>
<para>Yet what we have on the other side of the chamber is fearmongering. They use feelings and fearmongering rather than dealing with facts. And the facts of the matter are that renewables are going to have a terrible impact on our environment, our biodiversity, our birdlife and our marsupials—including the hairy-nosed wombat. I know how much Senator Hughes loves the hairy-nosed wombat because she talks about it all the time. We love our koala bears. Who can remember the great Austen Tayshus back in 1983: 'How much can a koala bear?'</para>
<para>I'll have to go soon, but when I do I will say to the Labor Party, 'Put your money where your mouth is and back this motion.'</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It really is an honour to follow my very good friend and colleague Senator Rennick, and I very much enjoyed that contribution. There were many themes in that contribution which have been pursued diligently by Senator Rennick through estimates and elsewhere. From a personal perspective, some of my favourite moments at estimates have been watching the interactions between Senator Rennick and his good friend Larry Marshall of CSIRO. It was always engaging, always good tempered and always fascinating to watch. I'm sure Mr Marshall remembers his times in estimates very fondly, Senator Rennick. In relation to this notice of motion—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't really know much about wombats, Senator Ciccone. I'm not sure if we have many wombats in Queensland, but we do have koala bears. Regarding this motion we're considering, as a matter of principle I would hope that—as a matter of comity in this chamber—if a large number of senators in this place want a matter to be referred to a references committee then that reference should, wherever possible and practical, be entertained. As the chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, I continue to diligently pursue references which have been referred to that committee by members of the Australian Labor Party but also by members of the Greens and by other members of the crossbench. And I will continue to do so.</para>
<para>But I think it really is important, as a matter of comity in this chamber, that, where such references can be entertained by a references committee, then the Senate should do its best to actually endorse referrals and approve referrals to a references committee. And this is no exception. This should not be an exception.</para>
<para>I was in the chamber last night when Senator David Pocock made his contribution. There are two matters I want to touch on in relation to Senator David Pocock's contribution last night. He said this referral is political. He said it's political. The point I would make to Senator David Pocock is this: he may not remember, but I certainly remember—I'm sure Senator Hughes remembers; I'm sure Senator Dean Smith remembers; I'm sure that Senator Matt O'Sullivan remembers—when that gallery up there was full of farmers and their families from regional Victoria who took the time out of their busy lives to travel all the way from Victoria to this chamber, to this Senate, to call for this inquiry. This isn't political. This is the Senate doing its job as a house of review, a house of scrutiny. This is the Senate respecting the wishes of those members of the Victorian community and thousands like them all over Australia—certainly thousands in my home state of Queensland and no doubt thousands in Senator Hughes' home state of New South Wales and Senator Smith's and Senator O'Sullivan's home state of Western Australia—who want to see this matter considered by this Senate.</para>
<para>It's a question of not just respecting, in the interest of comity, the perspective of a large number of senators in this place, that this matter should be referred to a References Committee, but actually respecting the Australians who took the time out of their busy lives, trying to make a living, trying to do all the things that you need to do, living in regional Australia, to come to this place to sit in that gallery. And that gallery was full. It was absolutely full of Australians who wanted this Senate to consider this issue. They wanted this Senate to consider this issue. So, from my perspective, their wishes should be respected. Their wishes should be respected. For the life of me, I can't understand why those on the other side of the chamber and the Greens are obstructing the reference of this matter to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee.</para>
<para>The second point I want to make with respect to Senator David Pocock's contribution last night is to pursue a comment which my good friend Senator Rennick made. It's simply not good enough to say, as Senator Pocock did, that the matter is being considered by someone who has been appointed by executive government to look into the matter. I'm sorry—that's not good enough. That's not good enough. We are the elected representatives of the Australian people. We have a role to discharge in that respect. That role, those obligations, shouldn't be outsourced to someone who has been selected by the executive government. There is a world of difference. While giving due respect to the person who's conducting the inquiry on behalf of the government, there is a world of difference between an inquiry being conducted by someone who has been handpicked by executive government on the one hand and an inquiry being conducted with all the benefits of parliamentary privilege and all the benefits of the rules, processes and procedures that we have as a Senate on the other. There's a world of difference between those two types of inquiries. That should be noted, that should be acknowledged, and that is one of the reasons why this motion should be supported by the senators in this place.</para>
<para>The next point I want to discuss in relation to this motion—and I've discussed it before—is in relation to the terms of reference. These are reasonable terms of reference, extraordinarily reasonable terms of reference. There is nothing which predicates or predetermines the outcome of this inquiry.</para>
<para>There is nothing preconceived about the output or the recommendations that would be made by the committee once it considers these terms of reference. The terms of reference are very even-handed. The language is moderate. It is sensible, logical and rational. In my view there is no objective reason why a senator in this place could reasonably object to these terms of reference. Let's consider them. The first is:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the interaction and efficacy of compulsory access and acquisition powers and responsibilities of Commonwealth, state and territory governments;</para></quote>
<para>This is a real issue in terms of how the different laws interact with each other from a Commonwealth perspective and from state and territory perspectives.</para>
<para>The second is:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the adequacy of Commonwealth, state and territory legislation, policies, programs, schemes and funding relating to compulsory access and acquisition of land (including an interest in land) from landholders;</para></quote>
<para>To what extent does the compulsory acquisition of land in my home state of Queensland differ, for example, from the compulsory acquisition of land in Senator Ciccone's home state of Victoria, Senator Ayres's home state of New South Wales or Senator Barbara Pocock's home state of South Australia? To what extent are there differences and to what extent should we consider the practical outcomes flowing from those differences in compulsory acquisition schemes?</para>
<para>The third paragraph says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the provision, and disbursement, of compensation under Commonwealth, state and territory governments' compulsory access and acquisition legislation and policy;</para></quote>
<para>It is one thing for a state or federal government or a territory to compulsorily acquire land or an interest in property—and that is bad enough; it can be destabilising and can cause great hardship, especially if the recipient of that compulsory acquisition notice has a lasting connection with the land—but it's another thing again as to whether or not the person is being appropriately compensated. How is the compensation measured? Are there differences in how the compensation is measured according to, say, the Australian government perspective and the perspective of the different states and territories? That is a material issue. What are the rights of appeal with respect to compensation? To what extent can those rights of appeal be practically enforced, especially by someone who doesn't have experience? Probably the only time in their life that they're going to have experience of going through a compulsory acquisition is the first time. To what extent can they practically exercise their rights of appeal. Who can assist them in exercising those rights of appeal? You have a situation where there is a total divergence and discrepancy between, on the one hand, the power of the state in exercising its rights of compulsory acquisition, and, on the other hand, the power of an individual Australian family who have never gone through the process before. How do we protect their interests? This is what this chamber is meant to be doing as a house of review and scrutiny. Why resist such a reasonable proposition, which is that this is something that should be considered by the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee.</para>
<para>The fourth paragraph says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(d) identifying best practice approaches to the development and implementation of a fair national approach to compulsory access and acquisition consultation and compensation;</para></quote>
<para>Nearly every single referral to the committee I chair, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, considers, compares and contrasts different approaches with respect to a whole range of matters, whether the matter be sexual consent laws or whether it be the response of federal, state and territory governments to the tragic issue of missing First Nations women and children, as we are dealing with in a relational inquiry I'm currently conducting in my capacity as chair of that committee. On nearly every single references matter that is referred to the Standing Committees on Legal and Constitutional Affairs we look at different approaches in different states and territories and form a view as to what is best practice and what we should be doing.</para>
<para>That's one of the benefits of this institution—the Senate. We have the ability to consider approaches at a federal level and approaches which are adopted by each of the six states and the two territories, and to make recommendations. We have that ability to take the helicopter view by virtue of our position here in the Senate, so why not take advantage of that? Why not? Then we have:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(e) measures required to secure the rights of landowners, farmers and fishers to maintain and safeguard the continued productivity of agriculture and fisheries, including emergency management; …</para></quote>
<para>I came from the mining industry, and one of the key issues with regard to the acquisition of land by the mining industry is when someone is using a piece of land for some sort of agricultural purpose—how you acquire rights with regard to that land without causing unreasonable interference with the continued agricultural use of that land. It's a key issue, and many cases have gone to court in respect of whether or not compensation has been calibrated appropriately, given the disturbance to ongoing agricultural activities in relation to land in a compulsory acquisition context. That's a real live issue. We then move on to:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(f) the efficacy of consultation processes between Indigenous landholders, farmers and fishers, and Commonwealth, state and territory governments and energy companies seeking to compulsorily access or acquire agricultural, Indigenous, National and marine parks, and protected environmental lands; …</para></quote>
<para>I don't believe in a system where the first time that someone who holds an interest in property hears about a compulsory acquisition is when they receive something in the mail. There should be open and transparent discussion and communication with affected communities. The first time someone hears about a compulsory acquisition shouldn't be when they come home, open the letterbox and see a formal-looking letter from a state, territory or Commonwealth department. There should be consultation, and the form of that consultation, both at the community and the individual levels, is something which needs to be considered. We need to know about the extent to which local communities and landowners are not appropriately consulted before these compulsory acquisition processes are triggered. Once we know about it, we can apply pressure to make sure that appropriate practices are adopted. That's our job—it's our job as the house of scrutiny and the house of review.</para>
<para>So I tell senators in this chamber that we'll keep raising this issue. We'll keep speaking about it, so maybe you should reflect on whether or not you should change your minds.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I take great pleasure in rising to speak on this reference, and I also appreciate the opportunity to follow two Queenslanders, who are kindred spirits when it comes to understanding the use of land in this country. With me being from Western Australia and Senator Scarr, and Senator Rennick before him, being from Queensland—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Scarr</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Great resource states!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Great resource states that really understand the value of our land, particularly our arable land. They presented the case as to why this reference should go ahead. And it's not the first time that senators Cadell and Colbeck have brought this reference before the Senate. Sadly, it might be, yet again, another occasion where the Labor Party vote against this very sensible reference to this committee.</para>
<para>I say that it's sensible, because anyone following this debate would see the very sensible, pragmatic and reasonable terms that have been put in this reference. So it's disappointing that the government might actually vote against this, we believe. I hope that's wrong. I hope that through the contributions that my colleagues have made here and, quite possibly, what I'm able to say in the time that I have right now, that we might change the mind of the government about this reference to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee.</para>
<para>As I said, they're very sensible and reasonable terms of reference that are looking at the matters that would concern particularly landowners and farmers but also those that have native title. We know that in my home state of Western Australia huge tracts of land are under native title, particularly in the Goldfields, the Mid West and the Pilbara, where a lot of solar projects are earmarked to go ahead. By connecting them to the South West Interconnected System, the grid, there will be transmission lines that will cut across these vast landscapes. An examination of the impact of these policies upon those landholders and land users is a very sensible thing to do. It's a very respectful thing to do, I might add. What this government is doing by marching ahead with these policies and these ideas without adequately considering the views and the concerns of those landholders and land uses is very disrespectful.</para>
<para>I am disappointed, but I'm not surprised about this government's actions. The reason I'm not surprised is that we have seen time and again this government riding roughshod over parties with vested interests, and we're seeing that right now in the industrial actions arena, for example. They're riding roughshod over workplaces and business owners, particularly small businesses that are working hard to make ends meet. They pay themselves after they've paid their workers, and then, from whatever is left, they might be able to find a bit to pay themselves and to keep the lights on. It's a demonstration yet again that this government is not really listening to the needs of the community when it really should be, and allowing this reference to be supported would be an opportunity to listen to the needs of the community and to respond to those needs. I really do implore the government to support this reference to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee.</para>
<para>Debate interrupted.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>99</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Withdrawal</title>
          <page.no>99</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>264449</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hanson, are you seeking the call?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I do seek the call. I withdraw any remarks considered unparliamentary this week.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>99</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee</title>
          <page.no>99</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference</title>
            <page.no>99</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McDONALD</name>
    <name.id>123072</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak to this excellent proposed reference because it is the extraordinary rush by this government to meet its target for 82 per cent renewables that has to be so carefully considered right across this country by the landholders who are affected, as Senator O'Sullivan has already referred to, by the neighbours of the landholders who are affected and by the people who are so uncertain about what this means. Whether it be for their business enterprise, for their agricultural activity or for their mining activity, or they have just moved into a region with all the attributes that were previously required like the native habitat—whatever it might be—it is all threatened by this incredible rush to meet these renewable targets without a plan. We all know that without a plan you have a plan to fail. All that this reference to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee is doing is seeking to get everybody in the same room to start talking about what the issues are: tenure, compensation.</para>
<para>Only Queensland really has a structured compensation program for power lines. What about for agricultural land, particularly intensive, high-quality agricultural land? What about regions like that around Gympie and Borumba Dam? This is a community that has already been through land reclamations for dams. They need a very clear outline from government about what's going to happen.</para>
<para>It doesn't matter where I go; communities are asking questions. Why is it that there are different standards for renewable programs for transmission lines than for other economic developments? I was speaking to a landholder, at the Heart of Australia Gala Dinner on Saturday night, who asked: 'Where is the plan for solar panels? If a storm or "minicyclone" comes through, does that mean we will get fragments of glass through the Murray Darling catchment?' These are very valid questions from the community. They want to know how they can plan in this environment, because it is a huge commitment that this government is heading towards. Eighty-two per cent renewables is something that has never been considered in any other country in the world. I think, after several years of real commitment, we're down from 82 per cent to about 80 per cent coal and gas-fired power. This is for billions of dollars of investment and subsidies into solar and wind farms, but that's as far as we've got. This concept of getting to 82 per cent is extraordinary and it does need a serious project plan to understand the impacts on the competing land uses that they're talking about. We know that in some parts of Australia, land tenure is terrifically problematic. Certainly, in places that I deal with in Northern Australia, the different sorts of tenure are incredibly complex, making it almost impossible to build a house—much less to build a significant infrastructure project through some of these regions.</para>
<para>I just think that this proposed reference committee is a very basic, simple approach to getting on with the business of Australia's future energy requirements. As I look through the provisions, it is very practical. It does cover a number of different portfolio areas, which is something that, in government, we don't do terrifically well. We don't always get across the issues of interactions between different policies—to see energy talking to agriculture, to the environment department, to mining and industry, to native title holders and to different jurisdictions. This is a very eminently sensible plan. I would be absolutely delighted if we could see the government agree to support this sort of planning. I think that the government is very keen on a review, a white paper and all sorts of inaction. This kind of action, actually planning what's going on, could only serve to benefit Australians, the regions and, of course, the industries that are most affected.</para>
<para>It is incredibly difficult for individuals to negotiate on transmission lines or individual projects like renewables. So I was very proud of the work that was done under the LNP government in Queensland with the CSG industry and the introduction of the GasFields Commission Queensland. That allowed landholders to go to an independent third party and say: 'I've been offered this contract. Does that stack up with what you're seeing for other contracts in the region? Is this reasonable? Can I ask for this? Is this not enough to be asking for?' It settled the uncertainty and made it much more straightforward for individual landholders to negotiate. It meant that their neighbours knew what was in these contracts and what was available.</para>
<para>That also allowed them to feel much more confident about the decisions that were being made.</para>
<para>Of course, it's now well known that the CSGM industry in Queensland has provided great wealth to those regions. We have farmers and landholders who I talk to who have been able to afford to de-risk their property, who have been able to receive an income during drought years as well as good years and who have, fabulously, been able to send their children away for higher education. One family I spoke to the other day had one child doing medicine, one child teaching and a third child who they've been able to afford to bring back onto the property and who has been able to continue his dream of being a farmer. It's meant that the lady of the household, the business partner, has also received a well-paid job and has been able to pay for somebody to come and clean her house. I think we all enjoy when we don't have to do some of those tasks.</para>
<para>This is the sort of thing that comes from a well-planned agreement and understanding about the impact of these kinds of nationwide projects. What does it mean for an individual business or activity? How does it fit within that community? How does the community benefit from that as well? How do you leave that region richer rather than poorer from that sort of engagement? Unfortunately, we've heard some pretty horrifying stories around New England about some wind projects going in and talking to landholders with no provision for remediation of the towers. It is shocking to hear that, for example, after a 25- or 30-year project, the landholder would potentially be left with that kind of infrastructure to be remediated. It would require cranes. There's a significant amount of concrete. We're seeing up on the Atherton Tablelands blades that have been damaged on removal or coming up being dumped into ravines or into landfill, and that's not okay. That's not what Australians are expecting these renewable projects to do. It's not the standard that we expect to be set.</para>
<para>Unless we have oversight and a nationwide discussion about what this means for individual landholders; for individual businesses; for agriculture, mining and national parks; for native title holders; for environmental regions—unless all of these things are discussed, put on the table and planned, we will end up with a patchwork of different scenarios across the country. Some will be good and some will be bad. When there are bad ones, we are left with communities that are fractured and unhappy, and that will happen for generations. We will end up with places that were previously very successful—harmonious and industrious, agriculturally successful—and are completely broken, and that is a tragedy.</para>
<para>We're seeing in Queensland and right across the country that, when we have natural disasters, whether they be bushfires, floods or even droughts, it is when a community works together that you can get great outcomes for the people who live in it. I do believe that we are all here because we believe in the people we were sent here to represent. I do believe that, despite being out on election days and having people come in and say we're all the same, the one thing that does bind us is that we do believe in better outcomes for our people. This is a way to get better outcomes for our people not just in the region that each of us comes from but right across the country, because we can do things better, but we do need to elevate it into the sort of inquiry that the Senate can have.</para>
<para>A Senate inquiry can be broad ranging. It can call for new witnesses as the inquiry goes on. It can provide the sort of advice and deep dive into topics that would leave the country better off. And so, like Senator O'Sullivan, I most sincerely hope that the words that have been spoken in support of this reference motion are heard by the government and members of the crossbench and that we can genuinely all join together to do something, to build a community that is in the nation's interest and will allow all communities to benefit from these significant investments.</para>
<para>We are talking about billions of dollars. Unless there is serious planning by government, it will be left to be negotiated by big companies. Big companies coming in from Italy and Spain in particular are the ones that I'm seeing in the north. They receive significant government subsidies, and they will be going where they think the best outcome for them will be. I've seen planning maps where proponents have not been able to negotiate over an individual farm or environmental site and so they've done a big dogleg around it. That's okay so long as there is whole-of-project planning on that. But what it can do is then push the project into some smaller property where there's somebody who's less equipped to negotiate or doesn't know that they can negotiate. In North Queensland, property owners have come to me and said: 'I didn't know that I could reject this. I didn't know that I could negotiate it. Now I'm left with a property that's cut in half, and I've not been able to negotiate for additional help to build new dams or fences or to fence off the nature refuge that's been agreed with government.'</para>
<para>This is important stuff. As a Senate, we can do this. We can elevate issues in a way that the House can't. We can do it in a way that individual departments can't. Ministers can't do this work. So this is the appropriate place to have a discussion about how to manage this sort of infrastructure planning. I believe it has been rushed. It's been jammed into communities. It's creating division. It's creating bad outcomes for individuals who aren't equipped and resourced to negotiate these things. We're being left with what will be future environmental disasters. We are left with economic disasters.</para>
<para>In Hughenden we refer to the 12 wind towers up there as 'the 12 apostles'. There's been talk of turning them into accommodation; there's been talk of turning them into a whole range of things. They were built with significant government subsidies but couldn't be plugged in because there was never a negotiation with the state government about upgrading the transmission line to take the intermittent energy that would be generated by the wind towers. Unfortunately, they're right on the highway, so they're a reminder to everybody who drives that way, every day, of what failure of planning looks like. That was a failure of planning between state and federal governments. That is a project that went broke—all of those government subsidies and taxpayer dollars disappeared—and it has been bought by a new organisation, which is trying to negotiate an outcome.</para>
<para>I highly commend this reference to the Senate. I think it's an important piece of work.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In the very brief time that is available to me I want to add my voice to what I think is a very important, and now urgent, inquiry that should be done by the Australian Senate. I think all of us from around the chamber would agree that the Senate committee process is a very powerful and effective way of making sure that views from a variety of stakeholders are properly accommodated and that ideas and decisions of government are properly interrogated.</para>
<para>It's somewhat difficult to understand why some people wouldn't allow an inquiry of this nature to proceed. The Albanese government's reckless rush to 82 per cent renewables by 2030 is making traditional owners, farmers and fishers across regional Australia early casualties of this plan for energy transition. At the very core of this are issues of equity, fairness and proper compensation for the disturbance of agricultural land or, indeed, its compulsory acquisition.</para>
<para>There can be no more important issues than the issues of fairness, equity, the disturbance of agricultural land and the produce it produces. That should be enough to warrant a Senate inquiry of the nature and form that Senator Colbeck and Senator Cadell have proposed. With other coalition senators—we've heard them today and we've heard on previous occasions—I also add my voice to the importance and urgency of this Senate inquiry.</para>
<para>Debate interrupted.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>101</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>E-Cigarettes and Vaping Products</title>
          <page.no>101</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Vaping is a scourge on our society. In my youth, tobacco smoking was much the same. So many teenagers took it up, being unaware of the health risks. They got addicted, due to the nicotine content, and they ended up with cancer or other terrifying conditions as a result. The Gillard Labor government were serious about tackling this problem. They enacted legislation to prevent smoking in Australia, through the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011. This act enabled the change of cigarette packaging to include graphic images of the results of smoking, as well as a harsh olive-green colour scheme. A few years later, the Cancer Council Australia found that there was at least a 25 per cent decrease in smoking rates in Australia between 2012 and 2015. This is what Labor stands for: protecting Australians against harmful practices which put them at risk.</para>
<para>Tobacco smoking did not need a successor, but, unfortunately, there is much greed and evil from manufacturing in our society, and thus vaping was born. Vaping, ironically, was very much intended to be a method for assisting with quitting tobacco smoking. However, it has had results far from the original ambition. The ease of accessibility to vapes, combined with the marketing targeted to youth, has resulted in the same situation that I mentioned was the case in my early years: a generation of Australians are addicted to nicotine.</para>
<para>Vaping products are often packaged with cartoons and bright colours and flavours such as strawberry milkshake, lush blackberry et cetera. And then they're wickedly sold to youth, to whom they appeal. Nicotine itself, while being highly addictive, is not the direct cause of the aforementioned health issues. Instead, it's the filler materials which smoking implements, such as cigarettes and cigars, are packaged with; examples include arsenic, acetone and butane. The same is true for vapes. Despite claims that they merely emit harmless water vapour, vapes contain oils which can stick to the insides of our lungs, potentially causing pneumonia and other significant health issues.</para>
<para>Aside from vapes which are prescribed by a doctor for the purpose of quitting smoking—which are different to the vapes sold underground, I might add—the sale by Australian retailers of any e-liquids or vaping products containing nicotine for personal use is now illegal as of 1 October 2021. There are no nicotine vaping products being sold underground which have been approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, and they are now classified as dangerous poison under the national poison standard.</para>
<para>There are now countless private and unlawful dealers of vapes who sell to young Australians underground, the same as dealers of other illicit substances. There have been multiple raids on dealers of vaping products, including 40,000 vapes seized in Brisbane two months ago, 25,000 vapes seized in Melbourne four months ago, and a million dollars worth of vapes seized in Melbourne a few weeks ago. The Australian Border Force and the Therapeutic Goods Administration have begun a campaign in the past month to take control of the importation of vaping products. The state and federal police are evidently very serious about tackling this issue. We need to protect vulnerable Australians from the scourge of vaping, and it is absolutely crucial to do our best to ensure that we do not repeat the generation of smokers that was previously the case.</para>
<para>One of the aforementioned raids was spoken about in the media release by the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Minister the Hon. Mark Butler from the other place. The minister spoke of the same concerns I've expressed tonight, stating:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Vaping is a public health menace that is targeting young Australians.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The enormous volume of suspected unlawful vaping products seized in this campaign alone demonstrates the challenges we face in tackling this issue …</para></quote>
<para>The minister went on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The reforms being introduced by the Albanese Government will be pivotal to decreasing vaping rates in Australia and the harm it represents, especially to our young people.</para></quote>
<para>As parents and as family friends, we have to reinforce to the young members of our communities how dangerous vaping is. It is one step away from taking up tobacco smoking, and we know the health issues that have resulted from that bad habit.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>102</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McDONALD</name>
    <name.id>123072</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor's ability to wreck an economy is well known, but it is very concerning to see that, in the pantheon of Labor's economic failure, the Albanese administration seems hell-bent on assuming pride of place, because ridiculous anti-business legislation is happening on almost a daily basis, but giving unions the green light to attack national productivity must be amongst the worst.</para>
<para>Graziers in this country are facing a crisis of poor prices, with the threat of drought, bushfires and limitations on abattoir operations stifling their ability to move stock. Now we find that the industrial action by the Commonwealth Public Sector Union will impact abattoirs because it includes government employed vets and meat inspectors. There are always more strikes and industrial disruption under Labor, but it's happening right now, when abattoirs need to be running smoothly to process animals. It is patently unfair that the meat-processing industry has been caught up in this action when it isn't even part of the negotiations. For graziers, it will cause enormous headaches in terms of scheduling mustering staff and transport trucks, driving up costs exactly at the time when they can't afford it. And, while graziers can't get paid, the striking workers will be able to make up the wages lost because of strike action and overtime payments. What's worse is that, while the CPSU members voted in favour of the revised pay and conditions offered by the government, union leadership rejected it. And spare a thought for the thousands of non-CPSU members who will also have to stop work.</para>
<para>Most people can appreciate the work of unions acting in practical ways to help employees, but this sort of greedy power play is where they torpedo any goodwill that they might have generated. They are happy to risk Australia's reputation as a stable business environment just to line the pockets of union heavies seeking pats on the back from their mates, rather than working constructively with industry. Under Labor, unions are running amok and making challenging business conditions even harder. We have an agriculture minister actively undermining the industry he's supposed to support and an environment minister funding activists to shut down resources and agricultural projects. We have an energy minister leading Australia over a power price cliff and a Treasurer who has overseen 12 interest rate rises in just 18 months. And our prime minister, who so boldly declared that he would always turn up, is distracted by fringe issues and rubbing shoulders with elites. It's hard to find one single portfolio that is not negatively impacted by Labor's policies, and, sadly, it's everyday Australians who are paying the price.</para>
<para>The economic landscape under this administration is worse than any drought and more destructive than any bushfire, especially for business owners and farmers. These people can rebuild after a natural disaster but not when their own government is stifling their ability to thrive. One of the most critical aspects of making a living on the land is timing and planning. Some farm decisions are based on circumstance, and some are planned. Uncertainty is an ever-present companion, so the one thing that they would love to be certain of is the support of their own government. Those graziers trying to get animals to market this week are the unwitting victims of Labor's cosy relationship with militant unions who are emboldened by distinct anti-business sentiment emanating from Canberra.</para>
<para>The meat processors are just collateral damage in a fight that they didn't start and can't influence, so I echo the sentiments of Patrick Hutchinson, the CEO of the Australian Meat Industry Council, who told Farmonline this week that the strike action will damage Australia's reputation as a reliable exporter of meat and that of Australian businesses accessing international markets.</para>
<para>To every small business that will also be affected—the truck drivers and the mustering contractors—I say: I'm sorry. I'm sorry that you've ended up with a government that doesn't back you, doesn't believe in you and is watching the cost-of-living impacts go ever higher. This strike action will just be one more nail in the coffin for consumers' ability to make their household budgets stretch to make ends meet.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Early Childhood Education, Domestic and Family Violence</title>
          <page.no>103</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BILYK</name>
    <name.id>HZB</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When I worked as a early childhood educator, I was heavily involved in union campaigns to see that educators' pay was commensurate with the demands of their profession. Decades later—in fact, over 30 years later—sadly, the same arguments are still being prosecuted. Workers in this sector are called educators rather than carers because the work they do is so much more than just care. They do not just feed children, play with them and wipe runny noses. Educators deliver an education program aligned with the Early Years Learning Framework, which requires a high level of knowledge and skill. As with other feminised industries, the rates of pay are well below what other professionals with similar qualifications receive.</para>
<para>The campaign is now a step closer thanks to a recent decision of the Fair Work Commission to allow educators to bargain collectively across multiple employers. The decision came in response to an application lodged by the United Workers Union, the Australian Education Union and the Independent Education Union of Australia, and the negotiations will cover 64 early learning centres with 12,000 employees. This has been made possible thanks to Labor's secure jobs, better pay legislation. This is an example of the provisions that allow for multi-employer bargaining working in the public interest. It will help attract and retain skilled workers.</para>
<para>A strong early childhood education and care industry is good for workers, good for parents, good for children and good for the economy, and we know from research that quality early childhood education is critical for a child's social, physical, emotional and cognitive development. Not only does it better prepare children to start school but it also lays the foundation for lifelong development and learning, directly leading to better health, education and employment outcomes later in life. It's undeniable that the long-term benefits of investment in children's early years far outweigh the cost. Access to affordable early childhood education means that parents can work, train, study or volunteer, boosting not only our economy but our social equity as well.</para>
<para>We were elected on a platform of getting wages moving, particularly when it comes to closing the gender pay gap, which this bargaining process has the potential to address. Should educators bargaining for better pay get a positive outcome, they will know that they have a Labor government to thank for it and that the Liberals and the Nationals tried to stand in their way.</para>
<para>In the time I have left tonight, I also want to speak on the topic of family and domestic violence. In late September, the Standing Council of Attorneys-General endorsed a set of national principles to address coercive control and family and domestic violence. Coercive control is a pattern of abusive behaviour that creates fear and takes away the victim's freedom and independence. It can involve both physical and non-physical abuse and almost always underpins family and domestic violence. These national principles are an important step towards understanding, identifying and responding to coercive control, which is fundamental to an effective response to family and domestic violence. I thank the Commonwealth Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus KC, MP, and state and territory attorneys-general for their efforts on this, as well as all the victims-survivors and their families and representative organisations who have helped contribute to the national principles by sharing experiences. The national principles are available online at ag.gov.au.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government is committed to ending family and domestic violence, which is why we developed a 10-year National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children. Among the measures we have implemented are 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave so victims-survivors do not have to choose between their personal safety and their economic security. Our Housing Australia Future Fund measure, recently passed by the parliament but shamefully opposed by the opposition, includes homes for women and children impacted by family and domestic violence. I was really pleased to join the Minister for Social Services, Amanda Rishworth, in Hobart recently for the announcement of $3.1 million for two programs focused on perpetrator behaviour, including a behaviour change program for perpetrators who are court mandated to attend a rehabilitation program, and an intervention program in the Tasmanian Prison Service.</para>
<para>These are just a few of the initiatives we are undertaking through our plan to put an end to the national shame of family and domestic violence.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Middle East</title>
          <page.no>104</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHANDLER</name>
    <name.id>264449</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Hamas has murdered more than 1,400 civilians deliberately and in the most horrific ways imaginable, and yet they have found support in Australia. Their leadership has promised to carry out such terror attacks again and again, and yet they still find support in Australia. Their leaders stole billions of dollars for their personal gain. They stole fuel, food and water from the people of Gaza. They dug tunnels and shelters for themselves and forced civilians to act as human shields. Their leadership says openly to the world: 'Nobody should blame us for the things we do. Everything we do is justified.' It is incredibly disturbing that propaganda coming straight from the mouths of Hamas terrorists and the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran regime is being parroted on the streets of our cities.</para>
<para>Where are the anti-Hamas rallies? Where are the rallies calling for the Islamic Republic of Iran to stop giving Hamas millions and millions for rockets and weapons? Where were these rallies before civilians were being slaughtered on 7 October? We have always known that the IRI regime funds and trains Hamas, not to help the people of Gaza but to hold them hostage and to create terror and war. It is unfathomable that the most deadly attack on Jewish people since the Holocaust has also launched an outbreak of open antisemitism in western democracies, including here in Australia. Our leaders must address this antisemitism unequivocally and without qualification—no deflecting; no changing in the subject; no pretending that you can't see it. It is shameful that here in Australia members of our Jewish community now fear for their safety and the safety of their families. It is very clear that there is a minority in this country which wants us and its backers to be successful in defeating Israel. There is an even larger number who either don't know or don't care that they are repeating, word for word, the propaganda of Hamas and their backers in Tehran.</para>
<para>Why do we see, time and again, posters showing the faces of the missing children and civilians held hostage by Hamas being torn down and defaced? There is no possible justification for such callous hatred. Why is there such silence about the central role of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is using its vast terror network to provoke violence not just in Gaza but in Iraq, in Syria and in Yemen? Iranian women and girls have been murdered, beaten and raped because they have been trying to show the world for some time now what the IRGC and its leaders in Iran will do to spread its murderous ideology. Instead of the IRI regime being isolated and cut off from its financial resources for terror, it has been able to profit and gain leverage from its abhorrent behaviour. This regime openly calls for Israel to be destroyed. They want chaos and violence across the Middle East, and they want the power and status of being at the centre of this violence. They want Jews to be killed and they want Israel to be blamed. It is appalling the extent to which they are getting what they want, not just in the Middle East but, through the propaganda and hateful rhetoric which is being spread, on our streets.</para>
<para>Stop giving the funders and promoters of hate what they want. Stop absolving them of blame for the horrors which they themselves pay for and openly celebrate. Khamenei and Hamas leadership are celebrating the propaganda victory of the rallies on our streets, which are making our Jewish community feel so threatened. Stop giving Hamas and the IRI regime what they want. Just like Nazi Germany, Hamas and the IRI regime are using antisemitism to grow their own power by creating war and terror. Any movement which uses antisemitism as a tool can never be in the interest of peace and should never find support in this country.</para>
<para>Senate adjourned at 19:49</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
</hansard>