DOCUMENTS

2023-11-13 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Monday, 13 November 2023

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

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 10:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Rearrangement 1 10:01 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to move a motion to vary the hours of meeting and routine of business today. Leave not granted. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Pursuant to contingent notice of motion, I move: That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to allow a motion concerning the hours of meeting and routine of business, to be moved and determined immediately, and I move that the question be now put. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the question be now put on the motion to suspend standing orders.

The Senate divided. [10:06]
(The President—Senator Lines)

33 AYES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Wong, P. 10 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

10:09 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [10:09]
(The President—Senator Lines)

Question agreed to.

10:11 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That a motion relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate, and that the question be now put. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the question be now put on the procedural motion moved by the minister.

The Senate divided. [10:13]
(The President—Senator Lines)

Question agreed to.

10:15 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the procedural motion moved by the minister be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [10:15]
(The President—Senator Lines)

Question agreed to.

10:17 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That today— (a) the hours of meeting be 10 am till adjournment; (b) the routine of business following formal motions be government business only; (c) divisions may take place after 6.30 pm for the purposes of the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 only; and (d) the Senate adjourn without debate after consideration of the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 has concluded, or at 8 pm, whichever is later, or on the motion of a minister. The PRESIDENT 112096 The procedural motion just agreed to requires that the substantive motion be put without amendment or debate, so I will put the question. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [10:18]
(The President—Senator Lines)

Question agreed to.

MOTIONS 4 MOTIONS Whistleblower Protection 4 10:20 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I seek leave to move a motion relating to the trial of whistleblower David McBride, as circulated. Leave not granted. BUSINESS 4 BUSINESS Rearrangement 4 10:20 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of Senator Waters, I move: That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely to allow a motion relating to the trial of whistleblower David McBride to be moved immediately. President, as we gather here today—indeed, as our day commenced in the Senate—the trial of David McBride commenced just a few short kilometres from here in the ACT Supreme Court. The trial is set to commence of David McBride, a brave Australian, a whistleblower whose conscience could not allow him to be silent while he had evidence of war crimes committed by Australian Defence Force personnel in Afghanistan and nobody would listen to him. Nobody in his chain of command would act. Nobody in the oversight committees was willing to act to commence an investigation of the evidence that David McBride had. He had tragically compelling evidence that Australian soldiers—a minority of Australian soldiers, but Australian Special Force soldiers—had committed war crimes in Afghanistan. When he tried and tried and tried to bring that to the attention of the ADF through the chain of command and every door was shut on him, eventually his sense of duty, his sense of what of right, led him to blow the whistle and tell the public about what had happened. And thank God he did. Thank you, David McBride, for what you did. And I thank other brave whistleblowers for what they have done. Think about the blowing of the whistle on the robodebt scandal and how whistleblowers were silenced and marginalised. Think about Richard Boyle who blew the whistle on appalling practices in the ATO, to be hounded out of the ATO and also prosecuted, despite being vindicated by a Senate inquiry and an internal ATO inquiry. David McBride's allegations have been vindicated by an independent review and report, which detailed dozens and of Defence Force war crimes. Senator Wong 00AOU Point of order: the Senate does have a subjudice convention which is intended to avoid debate or inquiry which might cause criminal procedures currently before the court to miscarry or reach conclusions other than the evidence presented in the case. I would make the point that Senator Shoebridge is speaking directly about the merits of a criminal trial which is commencing today. I understand that he has a political view. He's entitled to that view, but this chamber ought to be very careful about making judgements, particularly in criminal matters such as the ones he is currently expounding. I'd ask Senator Shoebridge, who is very careful to exhort me and others to observe appropriate Senate convention, to consider ensuring that his remarks in this regard are responsible. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Shoebridge, I'd just ask that you be careful with your comments. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 To the point of order: there are two points. First of all, these are matters before the Supreme Court, a superior court of record, and you'll be aware that the commentary on procedure and subjudice takes a different approach to Supreme Court matters. But more fundamentally, if I'd been allowed to complete my remarks, you would note that they are directed to the executive function under section 71 of the Judiciary Act, and there is nothing in any prior ruling, practice or procedure which prevents this chamber from critiquing and publicly critiquing actions of the executive, which I intend to do. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Shoebridge, based on the point of order, I'm asking you to reflect and exercise caution where applicable. Please proceed. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 So we have this situation. David McBride, the whistleblower, the truth-teller, not only blew the whistle but had his actions vindicated by an independent inquiry detailing dozens and dozens of incidents of war crimes. I know the government doesn't want to hear this. I know they'd rather this debate didn't happen in the Senate. They would like to just quietly see David McBride put in jail for telling the truth, because that's their action. We say this: there is one person who can stop this, one person who can actually listen to the truth and listen to all of that rhetoric that we got from Labor when they were in opposition. That person is the Labor Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, who with a flick of his pen could end the prosecution of David McBride, who faces the very real prospect of years and years in jail simply for telling the public the truth about war crimes. While David McBride is facing trial today, not a single member of the ADF who committed the war crimes has been brought to trial. There is one pending prosecution, but the first person to face trial, the first person to face jail, is not those who disgraced the uniform of the ADF and committed war crimes but the whistleblower, David McBride. The voices that have been forgotten in this debate, which are written out by the Attorney-General when he refuses to take this action—the most powerful voices, the ones we should listen to first and foremost—are the voices of those Afghan families and communities who saw their brothers and their sons murdered and have not received an apology, have not received respect, have not received a cent of compensation. They look at the Australian government trying to put in jail the whistleblower, and they look with disgust and are right to do that. What does Australia stand for when we have compelling evidence of troops committing war crimes and the person we prosecute, the person the Albanese government wants to jail, is the lawyer and the whistleblower? I commend this motion to the Senate. 10:27 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The Senate clearly set out what its objectives are for today by passing the previous motion, and I move: That the question be now put. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU The question is that the question be put.

The Senate divided. [10:32]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Fawcett)

Question agreed to.

10:35 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Shoebridge be agreed to.

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

11 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. 24 NOES Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. (Teller) Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

DOCUMENTS 6 DOCUMENTS National Disability Insurance Scheme 6 Order for the Production of Documents 6 10:38 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales May I refer senators to the statement made by Minister Farrell on 17 October 2023. 10:39 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia (): I move: That the Senate take note of the explanation. I take note of the answer given by Senator McAllister on behalf of Senator Farrell. Here we are again—the third time, I believe, the minister has been required to appear before the chamber and make the explanation required of him by the Senate. That is a very clear requirement. The Senate is not asking for a complicated piece of information. It is simply asking for the grounds upon which the government has claimed public interest immunity over the financial sustainability framework which it has adopted, along with the states and territories, in relation to the NDIS. This is a document of critical public importance. It has been cited in the government's budget as being the primary driver for the reduction over the forward estimates of some $50-plus billion in NDIS expenditure. There could not be a more textbook definition of a document that was in the public interest for release than this framework. Yet, for a third time in a row, this government, which was elected on a platform of greater transparency, greater collaboration and co-design of NDIS policy with disabled people, refuses to release such a basic document with such profound implications for disabled people. This is in a context where, once again, we now see the government refusing to release additional pieces of information in relation to the NDIS. I am a strong believer that you judge a government on the pattern of its behaviour, and what do we see in the pattern of behaviour from the Labor Party in relation to the NDIS? We see that they have consistently taken decisions, and are still taking decisions, in relation to the National Disability Insurance Scheme in violation of their commitment to co-design those changes with disabled people. Not only are they refusing to release the financial sustainability framework; they've also ceased publishing the full financials of the scheme in such a way that, had the former government done it, I am absolutely sure that the crossbench would have led the charge, and Labor would have joined in, to release those documents. Yet the government has continually failed to release them. Last week, we saw the government refuse to make public the full report of the Independent Review of the NDIS, even though that was handed to state and territory disability ministers on 30 October. This review has been the subject of so much time expended by the disability community and so much hope that the government would finally listen to disabled people and implement the changes that we need to see in relation to the NDIS. This is a significant milestone moment, and the government refuses to release it. The Senate asked for that document last week, and Ministers Farrell and Shorten responded to that request by saying—what do we want to guess they said, folks, given that we are currently debating a question of whether the government should release something over which they have claimed public interest immunity? They said: 'We will not release the report, because to do so would jeopardise the relationship between the states and territories. We will not release the report until after National Cabinet.' Isn't that funny? It's the very same National Cabinet to which the financial sustainability framework was sent and the very same National Cabinet, once that framework was there, in relation to which the government now implements a public interest immunity claim. On what possible grounds should the Senate trust that this government will not make a public interest immunity claim over the report, or some part of the report, of the independent review once it has gone to National Cabinet? We have absolutely no reason to trust the government in this, because they have refused repeatedly to release this basic document for months now. I will continue to press this with them. Disabled people deserve transparency. Disabled people have the receipts, ministers, of your commitment to co-design—a commitment you are flagrantly violating. (Time expired) 10:44 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I too rise to speak on this motion, and the first observation I would make is that everybody in Labor should hang their head in shame. Six hundred and ten thousand Australians with serious and permanent disability and their families rely on this scheme, and increasingly they are getting very nervous and upset at the lack of transparency and the uncertainty that that is causing them. We've seen the utter contempt. Last week Senator McAllister stood up on behalf of the minister and spoke for about 10 seconds, and today it was less than five seconds. That is utterly unacceptable and is nothing more than a two-fingered salute to every Australian who relies on the NDIS. But let's go into a bit more detail about what they're hiding and why they are hiding this data. As Senator Steele-John said, the Labor Party came into government. Minister Shorten, as opposition spokesman on the NDIS, said: 'There will be no cuts to any plans. There's nothing wrong with the scheme. There's no sustainability issue.' He raised the expectations, knowing that what he said was not true. It was a cruel hoax, because in the last budget the Labor Party cut $74 billion over the next 10 years from the scheme, and they have progressively shut down all transparency on the scheme. So what have they done? In February, they cut the monthly financial statement reports that I implemented as a response to requests by the Labor Party and by many others in the sector to have more frequent information. The monthly reports are gone. As to the quarterly reports, the last one that came out was in June, so they haven't even got the next quarterly report out. The quarterly reports have a lot of data which would enable us to identify where they are making the cuts to the scheme. The most important document at all for budget transparency is the annual financial sustainability report, which they are now refusing to release. We have a very short report. In fact, we have four pages only in the annual report, with big text and lots of white space, to replace a 270-odd page report that provided the detailed actuarial data. So they have completely denied the Senate, the sector and the Australian public any transparency at all on where they are making the $74 billion worth of savings. Not only that—they're showing complete contempt to everybody in this chamber with this public interest immunity claim. What they're actually supposed to do for a public interest immunity claim—as they well know, because they reminded us all the time when we were in government—is two things. One is to provide a statement on the grounds for that conclusion. The ground that they provided is that it would cause problems with state and territory governments, which it simply couldn't do. But what they haven't even bothered to do is the second test: to specify the harm to the public interest that could result if the information is provided. They haven't done that either. Again, Senator McAllister has shamefully come into this place and spent five seconds speaking to the 610,000 Australians with serious and permanent disability. Shame on you all. Here is what they're trying to hide, and I say to them: you will not get away with this. You will not get away with this breathtaking lack of accountability and transparency. There are only two ways you can cut $74 billion from the NDIS. There are two drivers of cost: participant numbers and average cost per participant. One or both of those have to be cut. There was a very short statement from the Australian Government Actuary. It must have galled Minister Shorten that he couldn't avoid putting the government actuarial report in here, and the Australian Government Actuary has let the cat out of the bag, because he said: Amounts included in the Baseline projection are then reduced to allow for initiatives in the May 2023 Budget … So somehow the $700-plus million is over time going to make $74 billion worth of savings to this scheme. It is completely and utterly ludicrous, and those opposite should hang their heads in shame. (Time expired) 10:49 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I too rise to take note of the minister's response. I should say at the outset that, when I listened to that response, I looked through Senator McAllister to Mr Shorten, the member for Maribyrnong. Senator McAllister has been sent into the chamber to give the statement on behalf of the member for Maribyrnong. Minister Shorten is denying the information that should be provided. Senator Reynolds made the observation: should Senator McAllister have come in and given that statement? I think that's a question only Senator Allister can answer. For the people sitting in the gallery so they know what is going on in this regard, the Senate asked for key information relating to the NDIS scheme, one of the most significant social welfare schemes that this parliament provides for the people of Australia. What was that information? Documents going to the heart of the financial sustainability of the NDIS scheme. This was in a context where, as my good friend Senator Reynolds said, up to $74 billion, on the government's own records, is going to be cut from that scheme over the next 10 years. If the government, through budget documents, has said $74 billion is going to be cut from the scheme over the next 10 years, the question is: how is that $74 billion going to be cut? As Senator Reynolds said, there are only two ways in which you can cut the $74 billion: you decrease the number of participants, or you decrease the amount that is provided for each participant in the scheme. There's no other way to cut the cost, and what this Senate is seeking is key information with respect to how that saving is going to be crystallised. The Labor government promised transparency. We on this side of the chamber remember all of the promises they made around transparency before the election. Judge them by their deeds, not their words because the Labor government are saying they're not going to provide this information because it may harm Commonwealth-state relations. Senator Reynolds 250216 It'll harm their electoral interests. Senator SCARR 282997 I'll take that interjection from Senator Reynolds: it may well harm their electoral interests. I'm sure it will, and it should because of its furphy about Commonwealth-state relations. How is it going to harm Commonwealth-state relations for the Commonwealth government to provide documents in relation to the financial sustainability of the NDIS? I represent the state of Queensland in this chamber. Those opposite can't provide us any explanation as to how providing us this information is going to harm state-Commonwealth relations. Why? Because there is no cogent response to that question. We here in this Senate are left with the situation where the Albanese Labor government say that they're going to cut $74 billion from the NDIS over the next 10 years. The Senate legitimately asks questions. The Senate is the house of review, the check and balance, in the system of Australian government. We asked for the documents which explain how that cut is going to occur, who is going to be impacted amongst participants, which future participants are potentially going to be denied access to scheme because of these cuts and how the Australian taxpayers are going to be impacted. These are legitimate questions being asked by the Senate, and the Labor government refuses to provide the key documents in response to those legitimate questions. What are they hiding? Why won't they provide the documents? For those on the government benches to talk about transparency, Senator Reynolds was quite right to remind them that under her ministerial leadership there was oodles of information provided in relation to the NDIS, including monthly financial statements. We in government provided monthly financial statements, not just quarterly statements, and the Labor government are behind with the quarterly financial statements and abolished the monthly reporting. Judge them by their deeds, not their words, and in this context in relation to this legitimate call for the production of documents, the Labor Albanese government is falling short of the standard that should be expected. 10:54 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise to take note of the attendance and the statement given by the minister in relation to this matter. I draw attention to the fact that this is week 3. We've been asking for this information to be provided to the Senate, to the public, for well over a month now. The minister responsible, Minister Shorten, knows exactly what information it is that we are seeking. It's not as if this is a broad, sweeping fishing expedition. This is a specific request in relation to documents that the minister is able to give us if he is to comply. The Senate asked for this documentation. The minister denied. The Senate said, 'Well, come in and explain to us why you won't give us this information,' and the minister refused. We now have a standing order that requires the representing minister, Minister Farrell, to cough up at the beginning of every sitting week to provide this explanation. Something's got to give here. I know why Minister Farrell isn't doing it today and is being represented by Senator McAllister. We know why: it's because Senator Farrell is a busy person and probably off in another meeting. That's how much respect the government is giving the Senate in relation to this order for the minister to appear. Now, the Senate has extraordinary powers. Most of the time, the Senate is able to come to a resolution with the government of the day to provide at least some of the information that's requested, and there's often a negotiation as to which parts need to be given in what time frame, but all we've had from the government on this particular matter is, frankly, pure arrogance. When you put in your own budget statement that you're going to 'save $50 billion', it is only appropriate that you explain how you are going to save $50 billion from a program and a service that is so heavily relied on by everyday people across this country. Whether you are an existing member of the community who accesses the NDIS program, the loved one or the family member of somebody who does, or, indeed, a member of the community who is trying to get access to the NDIS program because, perhaps, you have a child with a disability or a loved one in need of assistance, Australians have the right to know what is being cut from this program and know whether they are, indeed, impacted. You'd think that the government of the day would want to provide this information to give certainty and assurance to their constituents, to the community. I am all up for having a conversation about how to ensure that the delivery of the NDIS is done better—heaven knows we need that—more efficiently, more effectively, more compassionately and more respectfully, but you can't have that conversation if the government won't even tell us where $50 billion is being cut from. Who will lose out? There are always winners and losers when it comes to making budget choices, but here the government wants to have their cake and eat it too. They want to say they're saving $50 billion—otherwise known as a cut—but they don't want to tell anybody who is the loser and who will win. It is not good enough. (Time expired) Question agreed to. BILLS 9 BILLS Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 9

Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023

In Committee 9 11:00 The TEMPORARY CHAIR 241710 The committee is considering the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023. The question is that the Greens amendments on sheet 2142 moved by Senator Whish-Wilson be agreed to. 11:00 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia It's like Groundhog Day, isn't it? It's Monday morning, and we're back in the Senate debating the very same bill that was before us at this time last week. We are still hoping for some reasonable answers from the government as to exactly why they are so desperate to get this piece of legislation rammed through the Senate chamber today. An hours motion has been passed, which means this legislation is being facilitated by both sides of the chamber—both the coalition and the Labor government—because we all know they are under extreme pressure from their mates in the fossil fuel industry. Let us step back a minute and think about what happened last week. Last week, this bill was brought before the Senate chamber. The Greens spoke to the bill. Some members on the Liberal side spoke to the bill. I think we had a speaker, maybe, from the government trying to justify the passage of this bill. Then we saw a lengthy discussion in the committee stage, where my colleague Senator Whish-Wilson was trying to get some information out of the government. We got to Friday afternoon and still this government was refusing to give answers. But of course, all the while, phones in MPs and senators offices in this building were running hot. Who was calling them? None other than representatives from the gas industry—from Santos, from Woodside, from the gas industries lobby body—from lobbyists furious that the Senate wasn't doing what had been promised them by the government. How dare the Senate do its job of scrutinising legislation and asking key questions about the impact that burying billions of tonnes of toxic carbon pollution in the seabed might have on our environment. Imagine that! Imagine the Senate actually scrutinising pieces of legislation: 'We can't have that.' We know who thinks it runs this place. It's the gas industry and the fossil fuel industry. Then—lo and behold!—so upset and frustrated were they with not being able to get their legislation and rules past the Senate in a fast ram-through fashion, the leader of the Senate, Senator Penny Wong, came into this place during question time and belled the cat. What did Senator Wong say? She said this piece of legislation was for Santos, for Woodside, for Inpex and for the Korean and Japanese governments because they were worried about their fossil fuel investors. That is why this bill is being rammed through the Senate. We heard it straight from Senator Wong herself. If you wonder why it is that the Australian people are so sick and tired of how politics is done in this country, it was summed up in that one spray during question time. How dare the Senate hold out and ask questions and not ram through a piece of legislation that the fossil fuel industry wanted? Then we had the bizarre chaos and facade around a suspension of standing orders to extend hours. It seemed as though we were debating not the Senate standing orders but the Santos standing orders, because it was Santos and Woodside and the others that thought they should call the shots in this place. You've got to wonder, really, how much sway the fossil fuel industry has on the benches on the government side, don't you? I know there are good members in the Labor Party and the government who know we have to transition quickly and swiftly to renewables. I know there's frustration amongst members of the Labor Party that the fossil fuel industry still has its foot on the throat of government, but there is a fossil fuel rump inside the Labor government that still calls the shots. That's what we've seen this week, and that was facilitated by the fossil fuel industry calling up members of the coalition frontbench, begging them to do their bidding for them. Minister, how many calls did the minister's office receive from representatives from Santos and Woodside last week while this debate was ongoing? 11:06 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I thank Senator Hanson-Young for the question. I will respond to a number of the assertions in her contribution just now. At the risk of repeating myself, the government has been very clear and very up-front about our motivation for introducing the legislation that's before us now. The first is that since 2009 there's been a need for a response to the amendments that were made to the London protocol. The previous government commenced a process to respond to those amendments that were made in 2009. It was considered by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in 2020. Earlier this year, the Minister for the Environment and Water, Minister Plibersek, referred questions more generally around transport or movement of carbon dioxide to the House Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water. Subsequent to that, the bill was introduced, and a Senate inquiry took place. This is a longstanding piece of policy work, which goes to my second point. The government is involved in a substantial, complex, important project to put in place the policy settings to allow our economy to transition towards net zero in 2050. That is a large, complex piece of policy that cuts across many different sectors of the economy and requires a sensible approach to the full range of technologies that might be available to businesses as part of that transition. The government has made it clear that one of the many things that are required as part of this is to strengthen the arrangements for carbon capture and storage. There is a broader process underway to review the regulatory arrangements that are in place for carbon capture and storage generally. The bill before us is part of that. As has been explained on many occasions to the chamber, it seeks to implement a set of regulatory arrangements that are predictable and certain for the community and for proponents. It puts in place a set of tests about the environmental assurances that would need to be in place to allow a transport or movement of carbon dioxide to take place. So I don't accept the characterisation in relation to the government's motivation in bringing this forward. I find it hard to understand how anyone could seriously put the proposition that a bill which contains a set of propositions that have been considered by committees in this parliament since 2020 and which has in the last week been subject to five days of debate could possibly be described as being 'rammed through'. There has been extensive public discussion about the matters canvassed in the bill. In relation to your specific question, I don't have information with me about the specific interactions between ministers and stakeholders in the last week. I can say this, though. Of course members of this government engage with stakeholders. They engage with stakeholders from the business community, the environment community, the trade union movement and many other groups—all of the entities that have an interest in a transition that supports prosperity and supports the economic interests of the community overall. 11:10 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise to make a contribution on this absolute farce that's been going on for a whole week now. Let's just call it what it is. The two big parties have ganged up to write laws to facilitate Santos burying their carbon pollution under the sea, rather than reducing it. We now have the minister representing trying to spin that as somehow progress towards net zero and as a complex policy issue—so complex that the fossil fuel industry and big gas have actually written these laws, as is plain to see, because, as folk might know, the safeguard mechanism which the Greens strengthened and passed several months ago would have made it a lot more expensive for Santos's Barossa project to proceed. They were not happy about that, so what did they do? They found a back door, and they had willing accomplices in the Labor Party and the LNP, who are now legislating a backdoor loophole so that this carbon-bomb project could proceed. We hear rumours that I have no doubt are true that Santos and APPEA, the gas industry rep body, were phoning the offices of people in this chamber, urging them to hurry along and pass these laws that will shore up the massive profits of Santos—profits that it's making as it cooks the planet and gets in the way of carbon action. So my colleague Senator Hanson-Young asked the apposite question: who are they calling and how many times do they call? It's disappointing that the minister representing doesn't have that information to hand. I doubt it will come to hand in the course of this debate, because it would be rather embarrassing for the government to put that on the record. No doubt Santos has both of the large parties on speed dial. We had a whole week of debate here where the Greens managed to ask this chamber to really think about what it's doing before it races these laws through. I'm really pleased that we've used the fulsome Senate procedure available to us to make sure that these awful laws were not passed last week. We're happy to keep talking about this issue. We're here to try to take climate action as well as to stand up for people and the community. This is our bread and butter, folks. We are not going to sit down and let Santos, INPEX and Woodside continue to run this parliament. We will call it out and we will stand against it. It was very interesting. Senator McAllister has been doing the job all week of speaking to this legislation. My colleague Senator Whish-Wilson asked over and over what the motivation was for this legislation, and Senator McAllister stuck to the lines, as she has again this morning. And yet Senator Wong in question time came in and actually described what was really going on when she lambasted the opposition for saying 'no to Santos' and saying 'no to Woodside'. She did so in an incredulous manner and really spelled out that this law was written for Santos, for Woodside, for INPEX, for Japan and for Korea—all of those large carbon interests who were very cross that the safeguard mechanism would get in the way of their massive profits. What an absolute joke, when you have the Leader of the Government in the Senate actually saying that this place is here to do the bidding of the fossil fuel industry. How dare you? How dare you, in the face of science and humanity, decide to prioritise the private profits of companies that are cooking the planet, just because they're donating to your re-election campaigns or possibly offering you a fancy, overpaid job when you leave parliament? It's abominable that that kind of decision is being made in this day and age—in any day and age—when we should know better. Haven't they already had enough favours done for them? There is $11 billion every year of public money used to subsidise the fossil fuel industry. Isn't that enough, folks? Do they really need this extra back door to facilitate their bloated private profits? Much of which they don't pay proper tax on, I might add. Do they really need extra favours? You've already done them so many favours—$11 billion of favours every year from the public purse. We're in a cost-of-living crisis as well as a climate crisis. That money could be far better used making early childhood education free, freezing rents, building affordable homes, further subsidising renewable energy. There are so many real uses for that $11 billion rather than handing fossil fuel subsidies to your big polluter mates, who you're now doing a further favour for. It was very interesting that the Leader of the Government in the Senate finally said the quiet bit out loud, admitting that these laws have been written for Santos, for Woodside, for INPEX, for Japan and for Korea. I'll be asking the minister about that utterance in question time when she's in the chamber and able to be held to account. I'll be very interested to see what her response is, because they were very clear words said by Minister Wong. She seemed so incredulous that the LNP might not be jumping to the tune of Santos that very second, that they might dare to ask Santos to wait a few days. Of course, the reason why they're doing that is to make the government look bad and to make it clear that the government doesn't run this chamber. So they're winners either way. They know they'll deliver for their fossil fuel polluting mates eventually, but they'll put the screws on the government in the meantime and make them look silly. Well, they're laughing all the way to the bank! Santos knows that it will get its way. Meanwhile, the community is out there desperate for a parliament that takes science seriously, that acts to protect its future and that stops wasting taxpayer money on fossil fuel subsidies and building in back doors for polluting companies to have even more influence over this place. It's just ridiculous—the revolving door of lobbyists and industry groups. They go in and out of this building, in and out of ministers' offices, in and out of the ministry itself. It's no wonder that these laws were being written by big gas to deliver for big gas. How fascinating that the government's able to prioritise that drafting when it's not able to prioritise a whole lot of other useful drafting that might actually make people's lives better. I'm afraid the time for truth is here, and we're finally seeing with naked honesty how much influence the fossil fuel sector has over this parliament. I'd thought we'd had a change of government, and I'd hoped that things might change. Well, more fool me, because, unfortunately, they're both taking the big donations from the big fossil fuel companies, and it's perfectly clear from last week's verbalisation by Minister Wong that they will both do the bidding of the fossil fuel giants. It's absolute heartbreak for anyone out there that voted for this government in the hope of climate action. The safeguard mechanism was strengthened thanks to the Greens' negotiations, and now the government is back to building a back door for the likes of Santos and Woodside and INPEX to continue business-as-usual while the planet cooks, while there are bushfires in our regional areas in Queensland. They started in October this season, and they started in September last season. What more evidence do you need that fossil fuels are cooking the place, destroying bushland, destroying homes, destroying lives? And for what? So that some rich fat cat can make more money. How base is that? When did it become the government and the opposition's job to boost the private profits of the fossil fuel sector rather than represent the public interest and represent the people that voted to put you here? I don't understand the motivations. Why do you think it's your job to make Santos more money? Why? That is not your job. It is your job to act on the science, to adhere to the laws that we passed that would restrict emissions—not as strongly as they need to be, but better than we had before. It is not your job to now build in a backdoor loophole to allow business as usual for big gas. I mean, it absolutely boggles the mind. So I come back to the question Senator Hanson-Young asked, and I'd like to know the answer, too. How many phone calls—from Santos, from APPEA, perhaps from the Japanese foreign minister or perhaps from the South Korean foreign minister—did it take last week and over the weekend, to both sides of this chamber, to get you to collude on an hours motion to ram through these laws to boost the fossil fuel sector profits? 11:20 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I refer senators to the answer I provided just now to Senator Hanson-Young. 11:20 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia What we do know is that it is being touted by the fossil fuel industry and by government ministers themselves that this bill will facilitate and impact $30 billion of investment into the fossil fuel industry—the expansion of gas, in particular; $30 billion worth of investment: that's what the government and the coalition are hearing from their fossil fuel mates. You are risking $30 billion worth of expansion of the very toxic pollution that is driving the climate crisis. What we saw last week and what we've seen again this morning is something we don't often see in this place. We're witnessing how the sausage is made. The pressure comes from the fossil fuel industry. They're not getting the bill through the Senate as quickly as they want. They call the minister. The minister writes a letter to her federal counterpart—Minister King, writing to her counterpart, Senator Susan McDonald—putting pressure on. Then we have the Leader of the Opposition standing up and saying, 'Well, if you want us to pass this piece of legislation, you need to give us an inquiry that is going to do the bidding of the fossil fuel industry to destroy the renewables sector.' That's how the sausage is made, folks. And it's been nakedly described and exposed here in this chamber on this piece of legislation. Then, just to chase it up, there were the news articles over the weekend describing the pressure that the fossil fuel companies are placing on members of the coalition, with the support of members of the government, to get this legislation through, because $30 billion of their profits and their will to expand the industry and keep cooking the planet is at risk. Well, I'm glad it's at risk, because we have to start taking the climate crisis seriously. Rather than coming into this place and debating how we're going to reduce pollution, what we're going to do to stop expanding coal and gas and what we're going to do to stop the climate fires from taking rage over summer, we've got the political games of who's best mates with who in the fossil fuel industry going on in here. That's what we saw from Senator Wong during question time on Friday: 'I'm better friends with them, not you!' That is effectively what Minister Wong said across the table to Senator Birmingham: 'They like us better. You can't sit with us at lunchtime unless you give us your sandwich!' It's pathetic, absolutely pathetic. But let's be clear: this is how the sausage is made. And when political donations are at play, when the cash goes out from Santos or Woodside or the gas company, the gas cartel, they expect something. They were pretty annoyed last week they didn't get what they were told they would get. I come back to it: Is this the Senate chamber or the Santos chamber? Are we here to implement laws for the Australian people or laws for the gas and coal cartel? What about the influence and the pressure that are being put on our democracy, our chamber of democracy here in the Senate, by the Korean and the Japanese governments? Hang on a minute—why are we skipping and jumping and being expected to ram through pieces of legislation because a foreign government wants us to? We had the foreign minister stand in this place and say, 'Well, we should be getting this done now because Japan wants it. Korea wants it.' Well, I'm sorry, this is the Australian parliament and we are Australian senators, and this is about our environment and about the responsibilities we have to our own people and to the planet. Of course, this all happened with the backdrop of the Prime Minister at the Pacific islands forum last week, where Pacific island nations were asking the Australian government to do the exact opposite, to not expand fossil fuels, to not make the climate crisis worse, which is driving sea-level rise and putting their very lives, livelihoods and homes at risk. Well, we didn't see legislation being rammed through this place to help the Pacific island nations. No. It just happened to be that what Japan and Korea want is what Santos wants, what Woodside wants and what APIA—the gas cartel lobby group—wants. This is the Australian Senate. Our job is to scrutinise legislation and to do what is in the best interests of Australians. I don't think anyone can mount an argument that facilitating the expansion of the gas industry to allow the dumping of toxic carbon pollution in the sea bed under the ocean is going to be good for the Australian people. It's not good for the environment and it's not good for our climate. You just have to read between the lines. It's not the environment minister writing to her counterpart, begging for this bill to be passed. It's the Minister for Resources who has been writing to the opposition asking for this bill to be passed. However, this is a piece of legislation brought in under the name of the environment minister. It is a hoax to suggest that this has anything to do with protecting the environment. The environment minister herself knows it. The resources minister knows it. The foreign affairs minister knows it. Every member of the government front bench knows that this has nothing to do with taking action on climate change, nothing to do with protecting the environment and all to do with protecting the profits the Santos, Woodside and the gas cartel. 11:28 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I want to congratulate Senator McAllister on the excellent job she did all of last week and continuing on today of pretending that something is not what it is. She has done an excellent job of acting and saying, 'No, this isn't about expanding fossil fuels; it's got something to do with obscure international obligations that we have to sign up to.' If we were going to do that, we could, but we could do it without expanding the gas industry. After we last debated this on Friday, we had question time, when the foreign minister belled the cat and said the quiet bit out loud, said everything that Senator McAllister had been trying all week to avoid saying. While goading the opposition, the foreign minister said what the bill is about. The media over the weekend have emphasised that—the fact that, if this legislation doesn't go through, it will put at risk, in their terms, $30 billion of investment in gas expansion. That's a lot of investment in gas expansion. That's a lot of carbon dioxide. That's a lot of heating of a planet that is already overheated. It is the exact opposite of what legislation in this place needs to be. Senator Wong said on Friday in question time that this bill was needed for Santos, Woodside and INPEX and that the Koreans and the Japanese want this bill to go ahead so that they can burn Australia's dirty gas. It's very clear. We have kept debating this bill all week because of that clarity. We know what bad legislation this is. This is legislation that is pouring petrol on the fire of the climate crisis. This is legislation that is going to make the climate crisis worse. For the people who voted for the Labor Party at the last election who are concerned about the climate—and a lot of them are, and they had hope that this government was going to be different—it is not legislation that they want to see passed. Anybody who is concerned about climate, anybody who has got any understanding of the climate crisis, knows that we need to be getting out of burning coal and gas and oil and that we need to stop new coal and gas. In Australia and across the world, from the ordinary person in the street who is concerned about the heat and the fires and the floods, to the United Nations, they are calling on us to stop new gas, oil and coal developments. And yet this legislation is designed to facilitate $30 billion of investment in gas projects, with the theory that it's going to be okay because a lot of that carbon is going to be buried under the ground, with unproven technology. The UN, again, has said, 'Do not proceed with carbon sequestration and storage technologies until they work,' essentially. 'You've got to make sure that they work first. Do not use the prospect of CCS to approve massive new gas and coal mines.' And yet we're going ahead with this legislation, which is to facilitate the development—by Santos, by Woodside—of new gas projects. It is so, so clear. I want to finish up by going back to why this is so important. This year is the hottest year that the planet has experienced for 125,000 years. The last 12 months is the hottest 12 months on record. October was the hottest October on record, following the hottest June, July, August and September on record. We need to be stopping burning coal, gas and oil. We should be exporting renewable technology, turbocharging our exports of renewable technologies and renewable energy, not subsidising and facilitating expansion of coal and gas. And it matters to anyone that's concerned about fires, about floods, about sea level rise, about our ability to grow food, about First Nations justice and the loss of sovereignty of your land when you can no longer live in it. Under global heating, that is currently what we're on track for. Vast areas of inland Australia will become unlivable. First Nations peoples for whom those are their traditional lands will not be able to live on that country. There will be a massive impact across the board on our planet, on country, on the very things that make Australia the country that we love—on our wildlife, on our natural environments, on our forests, on our ability to grow food when our food-growing areas, our wheat-growing areas, start to have the climate of the central deserts, where you cannot grow food. This is what is at stake, and Australia has a massive role to play, because if we told the world, 'Yes, we need to transition but, no, we are not approving new coal and gas projects,' that would send a massive signal to the world. We are one of the biggest exporters of coal and gas. If Australia signalled to the world that we are taking climate change seriously and that we not only are going to transition to renewable energy here in Australia but are phasing out exports of coal and gas and are not going ahead with any new coal and gas projects, that would be a huge contribution to tackling the climate catastrophe, the climate crisis that we are currently in. That is what anyone who's concerned about our future wants to see happen. This Friday we have the School Strike 4 Climate. We have young people who are striking because they know that their future is at stake. We had Senator Sterle in this place on Friday saying the grown-ups were in charge. Well, what the grown-ups are doing is putting the lives of those young people at risk. We need to be active, we need to be getting out of coal and gas, and we should not be passing legislation like this legislation through this parliament. 11:35 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Here we find ourselves while the bushfires are burning on the eastern seaboard of Australia and have been burning for many weeks now. Here we find ourselves while we are facing an El Nino summer where we can confidently predict we will see record temperatures and, tragically, once again the eastern seaboard of Australia burning. And here are the Labor Party doing what they have done for decades now: coming into this place and legislating for the benefit of the gas cartel and the fossil fuel corporations. How do we know this? Because Senator Wong, in an extraordinary revelation in question time on Friday, said the quiet bit out loud. She made it very clear that this was legislation that was designed to be beneficial to Woodside, to Santos and, interestingly, to Japan and South Korea. She specifically made the assertion to the Liberal Party that they were saying no to Woodside, to Santos and to INPEX, but they were also, according to Senator Wong, saying no to Japan and South Korea. It's no surprise whatsoever to close watchers of this parliament that the gas cartel is running the show in this joint. It is no surprise whatsoever to hear from Senator Wong that Woodside and Santos are beneficiaries of the sea dumping bill. But what was a surprise was that Senator Wong accused the Liberals of saying no to Japan and South Korea. This is the foreign minister of Australia admitting in the Senate that she is being pressured by Japan and South Korea to pass this carbon capture and storage legislation. By the way, if you think carbon capture and storage is a viable technology, I have a harbour bridge up for sale and I'd be happy to have a discussion with you about that. This revelation from Senator Wong that Japan and Korea are pressuring her and the Australian government to have this legislation passed raises some very interesting questions: exactly what has been the nature of the communications from the Japanese and South Korean governments to the foreign minister here in Australia and to the Australian government; how much of a role did the pressure from the Japanese and South Korean governments play in the Australian government bringing this legislation forward; and, critically, what other fossil fuel projects is Senator Wong being pressured on by the Japanese government, the South Korean government or any other foreign government? The Australian people have a right to know what is going on here. The Australian foreign minister has made it clear that she is under pressure from the Japanese and South Korean governments to pass this legislation. What is the nature of that pressure? What role has that pressure played? On what other fossil fuel corporations or projects is she under pressure from foreign governments? Those are legitimate questions for Australians to understand. We sat here last week and watched Senator McAllister dodge and weave around these very questions, and then we sat here in question time and watched Senator Wong throw Senator McAllister under a bus. You could not make this stuff up. Day after day, Senator McAllister fronted in this chamber and stood up to do the bidding of the gas cartel and did everything she could, tied herself in knots, to avoid answering questions about the benefit of this legislation to the gas cabal and about whether or not there had been pressure applied by the Japanese and Korean governments. Then in came Senator Wong, and in 10 seconds she undid all those many hours of contortions and tying herself in knots that we witnessed from Senator McAllister last week. You could not make this stuff up. I would have actually paid good money to watch this happen. If it weren't so serious, it would be utterly hilarious what a shambles of a government this is. They can't even get their story straight. What we now know is that this is not just for Woodside and Santos and Inpex; this is for the governments of Japan and South Korea. Of course, that's because they want our gas. That's because our gas is not actually for making sure Australians have got enough gas; it's for making sure that people who live in other countries have got enough gas. We're selling it off for a pittance. We're exporting most of it overseas. And we are cooking the planet. What a bunch of geniuses we have got running the show in here! For the benefit of Hansard, that last statement was dripping in sarcasm. You could not make this stuff up. We are supposed to be in this place legislating for the benefit of the Australian people. We are supposed to be in here legislating for future generations. Right now, future generations not just here in Australia but right around the world are facing a future wracked with fire, wracked with flood, wracked with heat, wracked with disaster, wracked with displacement, wracked with disease and wracked with death. That's because the major parties in this place and their likenesses around the world cannot divorce themselves from big fossil fuel corporations. They just cannot do it. Whether it's the Labor Party or the Liberal Party, they cannot do it. When the history of this time is written, those who are unable to divorce themselves from the interests and the greed of big fossil fuel corporations will be understood as culpable—culpable for the collapse of our ecosystems, culpable for the death of countless humans, culpable for the dislocation of many more, culpable for wars, disease and famine. And you cannot say you didn't know. You cannot say you didn't know, because you do know, yet day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, decade after decade you come into this place, as you are doing today with the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023, and you legislate for the interests of big fossil fuel. It is an utter disgrace and an abrogation of your responsibility not only to Australians today but to Australians and people right around the world of the future—our kids, our grandkids, their kids, their grandkids. It is an absolute disgrace, which is what this sea-dumping bill is. It is an utter disgrace, a capitulation to the psychopaths running big fossil fuel corporations and a step down the dark road to ecocide. That's what is happening day after day, week after week in this place, and it is both major parties who are culpable—the government and the opposition. These are dark days, colleagues, and they are getting darker simply because those who are captured by big fossil fuel are refusing to do what the science and what the United Nations are telling us we need to do: develop no more coal and gas and stop native forest logging. We have to radically reduce our emissions. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 241710 Thank you, Senator McKim. Senator David Pocock. 11:46 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory We continue with this awful Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023, and, yet again, we have young people here watching this debate in the Senate on a bill that will affect their future. For a full week of Senate sittings we had Senator McAllister ducking and weaving like Muhammad Ali in his prime—avoiding answering questions and avoiding going to the substantive part of this bill and revealing what, on Friday, it took our Minister for Foreign Affairs to come clean about: what this bill is actually about. I mentioned Muhammad Ali. It's probably unfair on Muhammad Ali because the thing that Labor are missing are the moral spine, the moral fortitude and the conviction of someone like that. This bill lays that bare. For the young people up there, this is a bill that the government is putting forward at the behest of the gas industry—in Senator Wong's words, Santos, Woodside and INPEX—to create loopholes to allow the fossil fuel industry to continue to expand and approve new gas projects. The Labor government knows that that will come at the expense of our future. They know that they don't somehow have some sort of exemption from atmospheric physics and the earth's systems. You're watching our government ram through a bill, with the support of the coalition, that will lead to a worsening climate. It is so outrageous, deeply troubling, shameful and negligent for a government in 2023 to come forward with a bill that will facilitate the expansion of the gas industry. Over the weekend I was looking at a report by the Australian Academy of Science from March 2021 that explored the risks to Australia of a three-degrees-Celsius warmer world, which, despite what you hear from Labor, who have a great sales pitch on climate, we're on track for. Labor's commitments aren't in line with our Paris commitments. They talk up a huge game on the transition—and I commend them for their work on transitioning our electricity generation to renewables. It is a critical part of the puzzle. We have to go fast. But, at the same time, we have to stop expanding the fossil fuel industry. We know that. We've been told it time and time again, not just by climate scientists but also by organisations like the International Energy Agency. Civil society has been urging government. We saw people vote in record numbers at the last election for minor parties and Independents, who are in here to represent them, to stand up for our future against this recklessness of the major parties. How embarrassing is it that we have legislation whereby the government is willing to stand up in here and say, 'This is for Inpex and Santos and Woodside' and at the same time take donations from those companies—take donations from companies that have no credible transition plan. Santos and Woodside are banking on us not taking climate action. They're banking on your children having a harrowing future on this incredible continent if we're heading for three degrees Celsius. And I fear that what we're hearing from Labor is just some sort of surrender to the wishes of the gas companies. It doesn't have to be this way. We're being told that things are dire. Turn on the TV: things are dire. But our decisions now matter. Our decisions now are critical. We have a small window to act. Australia is one of the biggest fossil fuel exporters in the world, and as a middle power we can and must play a critical role in this. We need leadership. I urge the Albanese government to show leadership. Leadership on climate looks like listening to climate scientists, listening to young people who are begging you to look after their future. It doesn't look like the sea dumping bill. Minister, given the number of questions last week that went to consultation, representations that had been made by various companies and groups, and the answers you gave, would you like to correct the record for the Senate after the contribution of Minister Wong in question time? 11:53 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I've been clear from the beginning of the debate that the government has engaged with a wide range of stakeholders through a range of formal processes. The government consults regularly with business, with community organisations and with representations of organised Labor. This is the ordinary business of government. 11:53 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I thought I might take this opportunity to provide a small intervention from the opposition at—where are we now, day six, or day five?—of debate on this bill. I think we've had in excess of nine hours of debate on this legislation, and I find it incredible that we're not moving forward at any pace. This morning a motion was even moved to allow us to continue to sit until whenever—it's not actually specified in the motion—to complete debate on this motion. It's a welcome development, I suppose, because it appears there are still a lot of questions there. But I thought I might take this opportunity to inject a bit of reality into this debate, because we've heard a lot about the nasty, evil fossil fuel industry and how they're destroying everything and how that's their sole aim in life. But, last time I checked, the majority of energy generation in this country actually depends on those horrible fossil fuels. Now, it may not be optimum, but it is the reality. It is the way the world is at the moment. A transition should occur, but we can't just turn the tap off because the lights would go out and trucks would stop delivering goods from one end of the country to the other. It would destroy our economy, jobs would evaporate, and communities would become non-existent, particularly in our regions, a part of the country that many in this chamber seem to forget about when we debate these things. Not once this morning has anyone from the government or the crossbench talked about the cost of living. Most of the Australian public who march through this place are struggling to pay their bills. They're having trouble with increasing mortgage repayments. The cost of energy in this country has gone through the roof. Even in my home state of Tasmania, where the majority if not all of energy generated for consumption is renewable, it is expensive. In Tasmania it's gone up by roughly 25 per cent in a 12-month period. That's a huge impost on any household—any business, for that matter—trying to make ends meet. Yet here we are demonstrating to the people of Australia how out of touch we are by not talking about that at all. And what's worse in all of this is so that the government can keep pointing to things like safeguards as a means of having met our international obligations to reduce emissions. As we predicted and pointed out at the time of the passage of that legislation, that bill will drive up the cost of doing business, will drive up the cost of living, and it appears that's exactly what is happening. What's more, it potentially will drive those industries that exist here offshore. Yes, they happen to be heavy emitters and they'll go offshore to places, as I've said previously in this debate, where they don't give a stuff about the environment. These countries don't care about carbon emissions, and many companies do or would prefer to do business in jurisdiction where there are no regulatory regimes around environmental protection, where they don't sign up to international agreements to reduce emissions. These jurisdictions simply invite businesses to operate, and there are no labour laws to protect their workers. People get paid next to nothing to do what we in this country have proper laws to protect workers from doing. And that's why we're here, of course, because of Labor's terrible legislation, which is damaging the economy, and now we're trying to make a bad situation better. This government has found itself in this mess as a result of being intransigent and not even willing to work with the opposition on a fairly modest request to have an open inquiry into transmission lines across our country. Heaven forbid—a democratic, transparent process, a function of this chamber, the Australian Senate! It's not even a new committee that we're asking to have set up. It's an inquiry by an existing references committee. But such is the intransigence of this government that we now find ourselves in the sixth day of debate on a bill that the government has the numbers to pass. We're still here, and we're going to be here for a while, as evidenced by this motion to sit until whenever. I don't know why the government doesn't just get on with business and agree to have an inquiry. What's there to hide? What's there to worry about? I do not understand for the life of me why we are still here when the government could simply move things on. We could be debating counterterror laws. We could be, as I said before, dealing with the cost of living. But no, no, no, no, this debate is so the government can save face. The crossbench have characterised it in a different way, but it is purely a face-saving exercise. They refuse to move, and they think, by attrition they'll be able to wear everyone else in this chamber down. I will be interested to see how strong the resolve of the crossbench is as we move on, whether they'll continue to debate until this bill is concluded. Senator Faruqi 250362 Whenever. Senator DUNIAM 263418 The motion says 'has concluded or at 8.00 pm, whichever is later, or on the motion of a minister'. From the interjection from Senator Faruqi, it sounded like 'forever' is on the cards. That's an f-word I'm sure the minister doesn't want to hear, but we'll soon know what happens. I've heard the suggestion that the bill is being rammed through, but I've seen snails ram through a piece of lettuce quicker than the progress of this piece of legislation. I have to give credit to a person advising Senator Birmingham's office for that analogy. But what a joke, day 6, hours and hours of debate, and there is no sign of movement. There was one small request, a bit of transparency: we've asked for an inquiry into transmission lines and the impact on prime agricultural land. The government has said no. They continue to say no. We could move now and we could get on to all the other matters of business, but the Australian Labor Party says no. It's a shame, and I'm sure you'll hear more of this a bit later on. 12:00 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales It's interesting to hear from the Labor government that they consulted a wide range of stakeholders during this bill. From what I can see, the only stakeholders that they have listened to are their fossil fuel donors. The only stakeholders that they have listened to are Woodside, Santos and INPEX. I think Senator Pocock is right and Senator McKim is right. This is embarrassing and it is outrageous. As the world burns, as young people every single day are looking at a future that is becoming bleaker and bleaker for them, here we are greenwashing and basically greenlighting more fossil fuel and exacerbation of the climate crisis. On Friday I asked Senator Penny Wong why the Labour government would not end new coal and gas, and I must say there were assertions made during that response about my strong push for climate action being disingenuous. I forcefully reject those assertions. For me it is not about being right but about doing what is necessary, and the truth of what is necessary is staring us in the face. The truth of the impacts of climate change are staring us in the face. Even the Labour government admits that while they're offering refuge to those people from Tuvalu who will be displaced by the climate crisis. Even they admit that, but they're not actually willing to act to stem that climate crisis. It's necessary to take strong action on climate change and not exacerbate it. Hundreds of scientists and experts are telling us that it is necessary. We have irrefutable evidence in front of us that the world has experienced the hottest 12 months ever on record, and it really does blow my mind that the Labor government and Senator Wong won't even admit the role the Global North has played in the climate crisis through unfettered extraction and the use of resources and fossil fuels, which has brought us to this point undeniably. This is not about pointing fingers but about accepting the responsibility for what countries like Australia have done. That's what it is about. It's about accepting responsibility for our actions and acting then to repair the damage that has been done. The reality is that climate related disasters are increasing in frequency and severity, with the Global South paying the price. The reality is that Australia, disgracefully, remains one of the biggest exporters of fossil fuels and continues to have one of the world's largest per capita footprints. We know that our neighbours, who this government talks about so lovingly—our Pacific neighbours, the Pacific nations—are on the front line of the climate crisis. Well, do something about it. Don't push through this bill, which actually makes things worse. The Pacific nations are facing unprecedented climate disasters, and we do require the taking of strong and urgent action. And yet they have a neighbour in Australia that is refusing to end new coal and gas, which is fuelling the climate crisis—a neighbour that has contributed to so much of the climate crisis and still is refusing to take any real responsibility. The Pacific nations are staring in the face immense loss of life and a rapid collapse of access to basic survival necessities such as food and water. Hundreds of thousands of people across the Pacific will be displaced by climate disasters, and too many will die. Where is Australia here trying to do something to prevent that loss and damage? In the midst of all of this, it is pretty galling to see Prime Minister Anthony Albanese rock up to the Pacific Islands Forum with nothing more than coal in his pockets. What a shame that the Labor Party's pockets are lined with the dirty donations from the fossil fuel lobby which actually have brought us to this particular bill that we are debating now. The CHAIR 287062 Senator Faruqi, there is a point of order. Senator Scarr? Senator Scarr 282997 It is on personal reflections, Deputy President. I know we talk about this issue from time to time. The fact of the matter is there are a number of Labor senators sitting here today—there are two Labor senators sitting here today—and, when the assertion is made that they are essentially being bribed by the fossil fuel industry in order to introduce legislation, that is a clear reflection on a particular subgroup of this Senate. I think it is being done again and again and again by the Greens. I am happy for you to take it under advisement, but I think the point has to come when it's called out as a personal reflection. The CHAIR 287062 I take your point. I would say, Senator Faruqi, just be careful if there was such an assertion. I didn't understand it to be so. I understood your comments to be about an alternative to climate change and giving aid to the Pacific islands. But I ask you to exercise restraint given all the discussions last week. Senator FARUQI 250362 That's exactly what it was, as you said, Chair. The bottom line is we cannot afford more coal and gas, the world cannot afford more coal and gas, and especially our Pacific neighbours cannot afford more coal and gas. No amount of money to the Pacific will repair the damage that Australia's government green-lighting projects like Beetaloo, Pilliga-Narrabri or the Burrup Hub will do to the globe's climate. How can Australia really be a genuine partner to the Pacific while we are expanding coal and gas, the very things that are putting the lives, livelihoods and homes of our Pacific neighbours at risk? Surely we've got to do better than that. We can do better than that. We have the resources to do better than that. We have to get out of fossil fuels and we have to stop subsidising the pollution that is making the climate crisis worse. 12:07 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I have thoroughly enjoyed Senator Duniam's contributions on this over the last 10 or 12 hours, and I thank him for another one. I just want to provide a different perspective on something he said. He talked about the demonising or vilification of fossil fuel companies. The reality is that currently fossil fuels do provide a large proportion of our energy mix. That transition is underway. I'm certainly not advocating for an end of that immediately, but what I am saying is that climate scientists and experts are saying we have more than enough coal, oil and gas already being exploited for the transition. If we do want to leave future generations with a livable climate, we have to ensure that the existing reserves are used for that transition and that we're not adding new ones. This is about new coal, oil and gas. It seems very clear that this legislation is specifically designed to facilitate the expansion of the fossil fuel industry. We'll continue to hear lines from Labor and the coalition about the need to secure our energy security by opening up new gas, whether that's in the Pilliga, Barossa, Scarborough, Pluto or Beetaloo. The inconvenient truth is that we export almost three-quarters of this gas. In fact, the gas used by gas companies to process gas and liquefy it for export is more than the gas used by every single Australian household combined. The real failure here when it comes to the cost of living is that we have policies that allow that. They allow the majority of our gas to be exported, and there is no reservation policy. There's nothing set aside that says: 'Hey, this is Australian gas. We should benefit first.' Australians should pay less for our gas than Korea and Japan do because it's our gas, yet one of the things that are fuelling the cost of living is the price of gas. Australians are paying export prices for our own gas. Then you'll hear the major parties say: 'Don't worry about that. The thing is that they bring in a lot of revenue. They pay a lot of tax. We've got the petroleum resource rent tax.' Again, we are getting totally dudded when it comes to offshore LNG. Last time I checked at estimates, offshore LNG had not paid a single cent of petroleum resource rent tax. How can that be? If you look at the tax returns of these companies, a lot of them aren't paying their fair share of tax either. We've got teachers and nurses in our communities paying more tax than some of these foreign fossil fuel companies. Another cost-of-living pressure that is directly related to this bill is insurance. We've seen insurance premiums go up across the country. In some areas, they've skyrocketed. I've heard stories of community sports clubs now being uninsurable. They're being told, 'Sorry, we can't insure you for fire and flood,' due to climate change. Yet here we are debating legislation, which has the support of the coalition and the Labor Party, that will make that worse. What do we say to those Australians when we're here debating legislation that will ultimately increase the costs that we all bear? It will increase our cost of living. This is the price of Labor turning to the coalition for support on climate policy in 2023. Yet again, communities across the country are so far ahead of the major parties. They are urging them to step up, take this seriously, show some real leadership, show some moral courage and stand up to their fossil fuel donors. Santos, Woodside and INPEX all just happened to donate to both major parties out of the goodness of their heart. They just wanted to really help the major parties do their thing and get re-elected. We've got to do better. Australians will get to decide. Here in the ACT, for many years climate has been one of the biggest concerns for voters, yet they've now got four representatives who are voting for the expansion of the gas industry. We've got to do better. We've got to be more accountable to our communities. We've got to put people, including our children and future generations, ahead of the short-term profits of gas companies and the fossil fuel industry that clearly don't care about our future. If they did, they would be making other plans. I would much rather be here contributing on climate policy that maybe is in line with Labor's rhetoric. Perhaps we could be debating policy about the electrification of households, where, for the same amount that we continue to spend on fossil fuel subsidies, over five years we could have a program that helped electrify every household in the country. We know that electrification can save households thousands of dollars every year. The sums have been done on this: three to five grand per household every year going forward. Not only is that a cost-of-living measure; it's anti-inflationary because we're not so reliant on foreign oil and we're not so vulnerable to overseas conflict that sends petrol prices skyrocketing. But that's not what the government has brought before us. The government has brought before us a bill to expand the gas industry. We could be here debating measures that are a response to the Inflation Reduction Act. We're not doing that. We're debating measures to expand the gas industry. I'm so concerned that the government is too slow in responding to the Inflation Reduction Act—the biggest climate and energy policy and spend in history, and we're asleep at the wheel. We've got companies urging the government to bring that sort of legislation forward, to truly have policies that will make us world leaders and that will build this economy of the future—this renewables superpower that we've heard so much about. Just getting to 100 per cent renewables does not make us an energy superpower. We've got to have more ambition. We need more leadership from Labor. I urge them to bring forward climate legislation in this place so they can have the support of the crossbench and so we don't end up with a six-day debate on a stinky bill. 12:17 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I wasn't going to speak on this, but I feel as if I need to. I've been motivated to speak on this Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023, following the contributions from Senator Faruqi and Senator Pocock. I greatly admire Senator Pocock's sincerity and his dedication in this place, and I think he knows that. I do want to get some facts on the record in relation to tax paid by oil and gas companies in this country. If you listened to the contributions from the crossbench, you would think our major oil and gas companies are not paying any tax and aren't paying any petroleum resource rent tax. The facts are to the contrary, and, in the three minutes I've had sitting here preparing for this contribution, it wasn't hard to find the facts. This is how much Woodside paid in taxes and royalties for the year ending 30 June 2022. Just reflect on these figures and how important these figures are as this country struggles to fund the NDIS for disabled Australians; struggles to fund appropriate health care, especially in our remote and regional communities; and struggles to make sure that kids going to public schools are able to benefit from the facilities they should have a right to expect in a First World country. So just reflect on these figures in terms of tax contributions. This is just one company. Senator SCARR 282997 Sorry, I couldn't hear the interjection. Senator David Pocock 256136 Can you give us their revenue as well? Senator SCARR 282997 Senator Pocock, I'll take that interjection. But, typically, companies pay tax on profit. You pay tax on the difference between revenue and costs—on the profit. That is Income Tax 101. And I don't expect someone to pay tax to the Australian government if they're making a loss. I've been a shareholder in some of these oil and gas companies, and I think we need more shareholders in this place, because then you've got some sort of shallow understanding of the commercial realities. So many of these oil and gas companies actually lost a great deal of money when they were building these major projects, and that is one of the reasons why they haven't been paying tax. But let's see what's happening. The Greens are living in the past, and let's see what's happening now. Woodside, for the year ending 30 June 2022, paid corporate income tax—that's to us, the Australian taxpayers—of $989 million, nearly $1 billion Australian tax. Senator Pocock and the Greens, including Senator Hanson-Young, go on about the petroleum resource rent tax. Woodside, for the year ending 30 June 2022, paid $720 million in petroleum resource rent tax. So let's add that to the $989 million, and we're up to about $1.7 billion in tax just for one year. Would you have thought of that as you were listening to Senator Pocock's contribution and Senator Faruqi's? Would you have been aware of that? No, you wouldn't have been. In terms of federal oil and gas royalties, Woodside paid $535 million. So we're now nearly up to $2.2 billion for the year in terms of Woodside's tax. That's just one oil and gas producer. In federal excise they paid $392 million. In payroll tax, to actually employ people, they paid the Western Australian government—lucky citizens of Western Australia—$60 million. That's how many people they employ; the amount of payroll tax is calculated on their earnings. They also paid $7 million in FBT. So what's the total for 2022? It's $2.7 billion in Australian tax; $2.7 billion was paid in tax by Woodside, putting this parliament in the position where it can provide health services, education services, the NDIS and where it can provide for the defence of this country. How are we going to do that if you take away all of the tax revenue from some of our oldest and best tax generating companies? How are you going to pay for those services? And don't give me a speech about wind power et cetera. You are simply not going to be able to provide the revenue this country needs to provide the services that the people of this country rightly expect. That's the first point to make. The second point to make—and I took a point of order in relation to this, Deputy President. We are getting sick and tired of the Greens getting up in this place and making a general statement that those of us sitting on either the opposition benches or the government benches are driven solely by donations provided by anyone in this country. That is absolutely untrue. I know the senators sitting opposite. They're on the other side, but I've got absolutely no doubt that, when they put forward a piece of legislation, they're doing it because they believe it's in the best interests of the country. The Greens may well disagree, and it is their right to disagree, but I won't stand back silently anymore and listen to the general abuse coming from the Greens, generally accusing those sitting on the government benches or those sitting on the opposition benches of being motivated by donations from whoever it is, because it's simply not true. It's absolute rubbish. I certainly didn't come into this place to be influenced by anyone, apart from my own conscious and my own common sense. So I will not sit here and cop it anymore from the Greens. I will call it out whenever I hear it. If the application of the standing orders currently isn't providing for it to be disorderly, it should provide for it to be disorderly. You shouldn't be able to cast a general slur upon everybody sitting in this chamber, on the government benches and the opposition benches, and get away with it just because you haven't personalised it to a single senator. It's not good enough, and I won't cop it anymore. It actually brings shame on this house. And certainly I don't accuse the Greens. I've never accused the Greens of doing anything in this place, and I often get up on points of order, as they well know, and defend their right to say things as they want to say them. I've never accused the Greens of being motivated by donations. I've never done it and never will do it. I won't make that sort of personal reflection on any individual senator or on senators generally—absolutely won't do it. But I won't cop it anymore, either. The third point I want to make to Senator Pocock is in relation to his comment around the amount of energy that is spent on producing the LNG that is exported. That's fair enough; raise that point. But the question that should also be asked is: how many people are being provided with energy at the points on the globe where that LNG is being imported? How much energy? How many millions of people are benefitting from that energy? And where would they get energy otherwise? Would they be having energy provided through less-efficient means, which would create more carbon and create a greater issue? Look at both sides of the equation. Don't look at just one side of the equation. It would be an absolute travesty and an indictment upon this Australian parliament if we ever got to the situation where this country had to import LNG. That's what people are talking about: actually setting up terminals to import LNG, when we've got so much gas in this country. The whole notion that this country should be importing LNG is absolutely absurd. If that ever happens, it would demonstrate that the federal parliament and the various state parliaments have failed the people of Australia. We need to be looking at every weapon in our arsenal with respect to transition, and that includes carbon capture and storage. It also includes nuclear power. We need to be looking at everything in the arsenal to try to address the transition issues and make sure we can keep making things in this country. Unless we deal with this energy situation at the moment, I deeply fear that our smelters and refineries are going to close down eventually. They won't transition. Their transition will be from production to nothing. And all those jobs will be lost. They'll go overseas to countries that simply don't have the same processes we have and don't have the same care regarding environmental outcomes that the people sitting all over this chamber have. That's the test, from my perspective, when it comes to this debate. 12:27 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Senator Scarr, for your contribution. The only thing that could have made it better would have been the appearance of an Economics 101 textbook—but maybe later in this discussion! You raised a number of points. For me, the overarching point you hit on is that our current economic system is not set up to deal with something like climate change, because we've set up this system to basically externalise costs. The costs that carbon in the atmosphere create are not the problem of fossil fuel companies. This is obviously a very vexed issue in Australia. You could price it with a carbon price. But we know that that is not politically possible, given the last decade of climate politics here. But I think it's something we have to think about. We are hearing arguments about just allowing our current system and markets to deal with this, without recognising that the thing that sits above all of that is this moral challenge that we face. And we potentially need to recognise that the current system that informs our decision-making, as we see today—with both major parties supporting this bill—is maybe not up to dealing with this, and that is why we need leadership. That's why we need leaders in the Pacific saying: 'We want you to sign the Port Vila declaration. We know you could continue to earn money from fossil fuels, but that's not going to mean much in 50 years when we're underwater.' Senator Scarr made a defence of the contribution of the fossil fuel industry, and he is correct in saying that there has been tax paid. There has been petroleum resource rent tax paid for oil, and we've seen that increase by about $1 billion because of the increase in oil prices around the world over the last year. That's a good thing for Australians. But as, I think, the third largest exporter of fossil fuels in the world at the moment, we're getting dudded. We've been exporting fossil fuels for a long time now. We've been ramping up production. Compare us to Norway, who from the beginning said: 'We've got these resources, and they belong to all of us. They belong to all of our people, so we're going to ensure that we get a return on these resources'—they're now sitting on a $1.8 trillion sovereign wealth fund—'in recognition that we're setting this aside for their future, for young people, for future generations.' Contrast that to the Australian way, where we have the passionate defence of companies that pay some tax. Yet behind the scenes we've got this very generous system of deductions and being able to compound your investment to the point that, when it comes to offshore LNG, we still haven't seen a cent paid by these gas companies. I take exception to lumping in the petroleum resource rent tax with income tax. They are two very different things. PRRT is in recognition that that is our gas, and, once that's gone, it's gone. We should get a return on that gas. We don't let builders try and tell us a long story about how they're having to pay for bricks. We recognise that that's part of doing business. If you want to take our gas and market it, you can do that, but you pay us for our gas. Yet so far, for offshore LNG, they haven't paid us. They haven't paid us for our gas. I just wanted to go through some of the stats released by the ATO when it comes to some of these companies that have come up in the course of this debate. Woodside paid $176 million in tax on nearly $2 billion in profit, a tax rate of less than 10 per cent. If we move on to Santos, Santos claims to have earned just $74 million in profit on $4.7 billion in revenue and ended up paying zero tax. Another four Santos holding companies earned around $1.1 billion in revenue but also paid no tax. ExxonMobil say they made only a little over $1 million of profit off $15 billion in revenue. Those are some serious deductions! If we move down the list a little bit, we have: ExxonMobil Australia Pty Ltd, which earned $15 billion of income and paid zero tax; AGL Energy earned $15 billion of income and paid zero tax; Australia Pacific LNG Pty Ltd earned $9.3 billion of income with a taxable income of $689 million but paid no tax; Ichthys LNG Pty Ltd earned $7.2 billion of income and paid zero tax; Yancoal Australia Ltd earned $5.7 billion of income with just over $18 million taxable income but paid no tax; Glencore Holdings earned $5.5 billion of income but paid no tax; and Anglo American earned just under $4 billion of income and paid no tax. We’ve got to start getting a better return for our remaining fossil fuel reserves, because we're going to need it. We're going to need this money for the transition. We're going to need this money for adaptation. The government patted themselves on the back when they set up a fund that's delivering $200 million a year for adaptation across the country. The experts are saying we need to be spending $3 billion to $5 billion a year on adaptation or we're going to get to a point where things start to compound and spiral for communities—and we've seen that. We've seen towns go underwater four times in 12 months. We've seen towns facing fires and then floods. We've got to take this more seriously. I welcome the contribution of Senator Scarr, but let's tell the truth about where we're at. We should be getting far more for our resources and setting ourselves up for the future. We shouldn't be here debating a bill which looks to expand the gas industry for these companies, which, according to the ATO, are not paying that much tax. 12:37 Senator I0U South Australia HANSON-YOUNG () (): I have a question for the minister. What did Senator Wong mean when she said that the coalition were saying no to Korea and no to Japan? 12:37 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thanks for the question, Senator Hanson-Young. I've been really clear in this debate that this bill proceeds as a consequence of a number of things—firstly, amendments to the London protocol and, secondly, the government's desire to strengthen more generally the arrangements around carbon capture and storage. The reason that that matters is that the safeguard mechanism imposes obligations on large projects that have large emissions, and it requires them to meet binding limits on the amount of emissions that may come from their projects. They can do that by technical interventions to reduce the emissions from the projects they're involved in or through purchasing offsets. You understand that; you were here for the safeguard mechanism debate. Australia has benefited over many years from inward-bound investment from a number of countries. Japan is one of those countries, and so is Korea. I'm not going to put words into the mouth of Senator Wong—she is a senator in this chamber—but I think it is self-evident that it is in our national interest, from an economic perspective, and also in the interests of our relations with other nations that are our energy trading partners that arrangements that are put in place for regulating CCS are certain and knowable. That's been the proposition I've put before this chamber since this debate began. 12:39 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Could the minister inform the Senate what discussions or, indeed, arrangements were made with the government of Korea about the timing of this bill? 12:40 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I'm not aware of any such arrangements but I note your question and if I have further information that I can update you with, I will do so. 12:40 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Would the minister please inform the Senate what undertakings the Australian government, through the foreign minister or the trade minister, were given to Japan in relation to the passage of this bill before this parliamentary session ends? 12:40 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales As I have indicated, it is quite normal for the Australian government to be in dialogue with our diplomatic partners and our trading partners about the regulatory arrangements that might be put in place to manage projects in which they have an interest. I don't have specific knowledge but I would be unsurprised to learn that regulatory arrangements for carbon capture and storage had been a subject of discussion in the many interactions that occur between our government at ministerial level or officials level and the government of Japan. This would be an entirely normal discussion to take place in a period where we are reforming our arrangements for carbon capture and storage, we are reforming our own arrangements in relation to emissions and we seek to engage and communicate with partners about the approach we are taking as a government. 12:42 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia As we all know, in diplomatic discussions and arrangements, there is always a negotiation. There is a quid pro quo. What is the quid pro quo for Australia to pass this bill, which, as Senator Wong indicated last Friday, was for Korea and Japan? 12:42 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I have stepped on many occasions the motivation for the government bringing forward this bill. It is because we consider it to be in the national interest and is aligned with the steps that are necessary to put Australia on a path to net zero. I simply do not accept the premise embedded in your question. 12:43 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Could you please explain to the Senate why the countries of Japan and Korea were named by Minister Wong but no others? 12:43 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales As I indicated in my earlier answer, I'm not going to put words into the mouth of Senator Wong. More generally, also as indicated in my previous answer, of course there are discussions between ourselves and the governments of Japan and Korea. That is entirely to be expected given the significance of the trading relationships and investment relationships between our countries. 12:44 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I'm not asking for you to put words into Senator Wong's mouth. Senator Wong said clearly in this chamber that those not passing this bill—namely, the opposition at the time—were saying no to Japan and no to Korea.It's on Hansard. I'm not asking you to put words into Senator's Wong's mouth. I'm trying to understand what saying yes means. What is it that the Australian government has said yes to Japan about? What is it that the Australian government has said yes to Korea about? You can't come into this place, ask us to ram through pieces of legislation, argue that it's about a years-old obligation, and then have the foreign minister stand up and give such an extraordinary spray about the urgency of this bill passing at the whim and request of two foreign countries. It is extraordinary to be suggesting that this chamber must jump simply because Japan and Korea say so. What is it that saying yes to Japan and Korea means? I'm not asking for you to put words in Senator Wong's mouth; I'm asking for an explanation, a whole-of-government understanding of what saying yes to Japan is, what saying yes to Korea is in relation to this piece of legislation. 12:46 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales If Senator Hanson-Young had been observing the debate, and I'm sure she has been over the many months that we've been discussing climate policy since we came to government, she'd know that on many occasions the government has been asked by domestic commentators about the approach that we're taking to relationships with Japan and Korea as some of our key energy trading partners. The position put clearly and publicly on many occasions has been that the government intends to communicate openly and transparently with our energy trading partners about our regulatory arrangements across a whole range of policy areas, in fact. It is unsurprising that in relation to carbon capture and storage, which is relevant to a number of projects where there are Japanese and Korean investors involved, that we would seek to make clear to our partners what the relevant regulatory arrangements might be. I don't think that's an unusual feature of policymaking. In fact, it is a positive thing that so many of our senior ministers are actively engaged in discussions and dialogue with key regional trading partners. 12:47 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Minister, in light of Senator Wong's statements in this chamber, I want to ask a question that I asked last week—I'm not sure if it was on Monday or Tuesday or maybe on Wednesday—about whether or not the government had an agreement with a gas company or someone acting on their behalf prior to the safeguard mechanism passing this parliament about the legislation in front of us today. I'm happy for you to consult on whether it was with Minister Bowen or Minister Plibersek and their office. 12:48 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator Pocock, I have answered this question before by pointing to the fact that this legislation has had a very long period of development and has been in the works for a very long time. We've stepped through the timetable many times. An amendment was made to the London protocol in 2009. It was considered by the JSCOT in 2020. Legislation to consider the matter commenced under the previous government. Minister Plibersek referred the broad question of the amendments to the London protocol to the House Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water in 2023. Legislation was then introduced, and it was considered by a Senate committee. Most of that timetable predates the debate on the safeguard mechanism. I don't think it is unusual for reforms to proceed in parallel, and the government has been very upfront that the reform of the arrangements around carbon capture and storage are connected to our broader arrangements in relation to emissions reduction across the economy. 12:50 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory You've said a number of times that you've answered our questions, but I really seek clarification. My concern is that there was a deal done by the Albanese government before the safeguard mechanism negotiations and their passage through the parliament that basically said: 'Don't worry about this safeguard. Don't make too much noise as a gas industry, because we're going to give you this get-out-of-jail-free card in the form of the sea-dumping bill.' I've repeatedly asked whether or not there was an agreement to that extent. You've given other explanations about the length of time this has been in the works, the consultation, the London protocol et cetera. I would really just like a yes or no: was there or wasn't there an agreement to that extent? Then I'll stop asking this question. 12:51 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I'm advised that no agreement was entered into by Ministers Plibersek or Bowen prior to the passage of the safeguard legislation. But I make the point again that your question implies that there is something unconventional about the legislation that's coming through. The reason that I keep pointing to the timetable is that this bill has proceeded in an entirely ordinary way through a series of very public discussions about its nature and purpose, and all of these—well, most of these—processes precede the passage of the safeguard legislation. And so, in contemplating the impacts of the safeguard legislation, stakeholders, whether they are in community organisations or are representatives of employees, trade union organisations, employer organisations or enterprises, would have had knowledge of the set of propositions that were moving through the system and had already been recommended for passage by JSCOT back in 2020. 12:52 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I did want to respond to some of the remarks made by Senator Pocock in relation to tax which has been paid. I'm very keen to be reeled in by Senator Pocock in this respect. I do note that Exxon Mobil, one of the companies that has been referred to by Senator Pocock in his comments, has invested $41 billion in Australia. Isn't that a good thing? One hundred per cent of their Gippsland gas is sold locally and taxed in Australia, providing essential energy that Australian homes and businesses rely on. Senator Pocock referred to a local reservation policy. One hundred per cent of that Gippsland gas—Gippsland Basin Join Venture supplies 70 per cent of Victoria's natural gas, relied on for heating, cooking and manufacturing. And we're coming into this place and demonising them? They provide 70 per cent of Victoria's gas. You can't have a manufacturing industry at the moment without gas, and yet they're being demonised by Senator Pocock and those others sitting on the crossbenches. How much petroleum resource rent tax do you think they've paid since 1990? Five billion? Higher. Ten billion? Higher. Exxon Mobil has paid $15 billion just in petroleum resource rent tax. On average they pay $3 billion a year in all of the different categories of tax, royalties and excise, and we're demonising them? Senator Pocock also referred to Glencore. Glencore does have a very close connection with my home state of Queensland, having, in a previous iteration, when it was known as Xstrata, taken over one of Queensland's best companies, Mount Isa Mines Limited. Each year they produce a Paymentstogovernments report. I would suggest to anyone who is listening to this debate, if you want to know the truth about how much tax is paid by companies, to do your own research and dig in, because you will find the information: This report addresses our UK regulatory obligations under DTR 4.3A of the Financial Conduct Authority's Disclosure Guidance and Transparency Rules, which were introduced to implement the payments to governments requirements provided for in the EU Transparency and Accounting Directives. So, this document has been produced to meet Glencore's accounting obligations—legal obligations. For the year ending 30 June 2022, this is how much tax the Glencore group paid Australia—listen very carefully—taxes on income, or corporate tax, $2,004,000,000; royalties, including to my home state of Queensland, over $2 billion, so we're up to $4 billion in tax; fees, $34.6 million; tax payments calculated in line with the UK transparency requirements, over $4 billion; customs/import/excise/export tax and duties, $383 million; payroll taxes, and that's that awful tax that companies have to pay to actually employ people, nearly $200 million; and taxes and duties relating to non-extractive activities, $482 million. So, the total they paid to federal and state governments for the year ending 30 June 2022—just reflect on this figure—is $5.135 billion. In my previous contribution I referred to Woodside having contributed $4 billion, I think it was. If you add those two together, you get $9 billion of tax revenue, just from those two companies. What are those who are sitting at that end of the chamber proposing should be done to replace that tax revenue? That's $9 billion. Glencore, last financial year, to 30 June 2022, from their transparency report, paid $5.135 billion. So, great care needs to be taken, when we look at these reports that are produced in relation to this corporate group as to how much tax is paid. The best source of information is reports like this. Then you will see that 41.66 per cent of the tax paid by Glencore all over the world was paid to the Australian federal government and Australian state governments—41.66 per cent. Now, if we were to introduce the policies that those at that end of the chamber would like to see introduced, including opposing this bill, do you know what would happen? These companies would take their business somewhere else. Where would they take it? You don't need to look too far, because they list all the other countries where they pay taxes. They could take their business to Argentina, where they paid $2.7 billion in tax, or Bolivia, where they paid $6.7 billion in tax, or Cameroon, Canada, Chad, Chile, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Kazakhstan, New Caledonia, Peru, South Africa or the United States—the rest of the world—where they paid half a billion dollars of tax. They have choices. They don't have to invest their capital in this country. And as we're sitting here having this debate, and their investment boards are making decisions about whether or not they invest $1 billion of capital in Australia or invest it in Argentina, Chile, Equatorial Guinea or wherever else they have assets, they will consider Australia's taxation regime in making those decisions. So, during the course of this debate, great care should be taken with respect to the practical consequences for everyday Australians, in terms of having gas supply and jobs, of the policies that are made in this place. 12:59 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Again, thank you, Senator Scarr, for your contribution. My concern is that, if you zoom out a little bit in this debate about the contribution of the fossil fuel industry in Australia, it's hard to go past the fact that, for all of our fossil fuel exports and for our mining booms over the years, we're not sitting on a $1.8 trillion sovereign wealth fund. We've got a huge debt. We can talk about a couple of billion here, four billion there or 10 billion there, but I think the crossbench—from Pauline Hanson's One Nation party to the Greens—are saying: 'Those are our resources. You only get to exploit them once, and once they're gone, they're gone. So let's get something from them.' I'm very wary of falling into the tactics that the fossil fuel industry use about simply moving elsewhere. To come back to Norway, which I think is a really great example—and then we'll come to WA—when Norway was setting up their oil industry, they were faced with the question of what the right thing to do is when you have an enormous oil reserve but it's ultimately finite. They stared the oil companies down and said: 'Yes, come and take our oil. You can make a profit—that's fine—but we're going to tax you, because that is our oil.' We heard the exact same thing from Senator Scarr today. They said, 'Well, there's oil elsewhere; we're going to go elsewhere.' At the time I think it was the Norwegian Labour Party government who said: 'Sure. Go elsewhere.' The oil industry then went to the conservative opposition party to try and drive a wedge and use this to divide Norwegians' political parties, and, to their credit, the Conservative Party said: 'Do you know what? We agree. That's our oil. You can come and exploit it, and you can make a profit, but we are going to tax you.' They taxed the companies at such a rate that, decades later, they have almost $2 trillion sitting in a sovereign wealth fund. We saw a similar version of events in Western Australia when they went to implement a reservation policy, and the gas companies said: 'Well, that'll be the end of it. We'll go find gas elsewhere.' And the government stared them down. I think it took 24 hours for the gas companies to come back to the table and say, 'Well, actually, we'll continue to invest here,' and they have. Fundamentally, when we talk about fossil fuel companies not paying their fair share, let's not get taken by the billions of dollars that they do pay; let's look at the whole system, where we have a resource that belongs to all Australians. We're currently facing a lot of challenges, one of them being climate change, which we know fossil fuels have contributed to and continue to contribute to. We should be looking at ways to get a better return during the transition, so we can put money into things like cost-of-living relief and put money into things like electrification and programs at the demand side of the energy equation that help households. We can design policies in a way that ensures that no households are left behind and that low-income households and Australians who live in social housing benefit from solar panels and benefit from getting off cooking with gas and having induction stovetops so that they can avoid contributing to the asthma of their kids. These options should be available to Australians. We're one of the wealthiest countries in the world, but for many years we've chosen not to have a system that says to fossil fuel companies: 'Yes, you can come and exploit this resource, but we're going to tax you. We're going to get a return for Australians, and we're going to decide how we use that as a country.' On behalf of the people I represent here in the ACT, I would like to put on the record that this bill goes against the mandate that the Labor government got at the last election when it comes to climate. It goes against the wishes of Australians, who in record numbers voted for Independents and minor parties. After the bushfires and the harrowing images of the loss of human and non-human life, the loss of property, millions of hectares of forest burnt and parts of Namadgi up in flames, Australians want better, and they voted for better. Yet we're doing them a great disservice by having this bill come through the Senate. We've got to start thinking about the people that we represent. We've got to start thinking about the young people whose lives will be affected by the actions we take today in passing or not passing this bill. It will be no good to say to them: 'Well, kids, Santos, INPEX and Woodside really wanted that legislation so that they could continue to expand the fossil fuel industry against the advice of climate scientists, against the advice of the International Energy Agency and against the advice of most Australians who want bolder climate action. They really wanted it, and so did Korea and Japan. Sorry, kids; you're just going to have to make do.' It doesn't cut it. We need better and we can have better. We can have more courage from the Labor government. We can have them using some of their political capital for things that matter, like the transition to renewables and leaving new fossil fuels in the ground. In 2023, for elected representatives to be voting for legislation that will expand the fossil fuel industry is deeply troubling—and, I would argue, negligent—because we've been warned time and time again. We've got to do better than this so we can go back to the people that we're here serving and working for, the people that voted for us, and say, 'Yes, things are bad, but we're doing absolutely everything we can to turn this around,' and this legislation doesn't do that. This legislation is creating a loophole to get around the safeguard mechanism and say, 'We're going to exploit the Barossa, the dirtiest gas ever exploited in Australia, and we're just going to pipe that CO2 to another country so it's not our problem.' It doesn't cut it. I would urge Labor to do better when it comes to truly embracing a transition, which means not just building up renewables but stopping the expansion of the fossil fuel industry. 13:10 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I'm going back to some of the questions I was asking Senator McAllister in relation to the government's motivation for bringing forward this bill in these last few sitting weeks. I'm wondering if the minister—through you, Chair—could inform the Senate as to whether any discussions have been had in the past week between the Minister for Resources, the Minister for Resources's office and any representatives of the Santos corporation. 13:10 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I don't have specific information about the Minister for Resources's diary and schedule and certainly not for her staff more generally or the department that she administers. It wouldn't be surprising if the Minister for Resources were engaged in discussions with a company that is active in the resource sector. 13:11 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia We are here today debating a piece of legislation that the government has been so desperate to get passed that we saw an extraordinary contribution given by the Leader of the Government in the Senate on Friday, where she let the cat out of the bag and said this was for Santos, for Woodside, for Inpex and for other foreign companies and countries. I think it is well within expectations for Senator McAllister and her advisers sitting in the chamber today to be able to answer some basic questions as to who the Minister for Resources has been discussing this issue with. The reason I'm interested in this is because it was the Minister for Resources, Minister King, who on Friday wrote to her coalition counterpart, Senator Susan McDonald, to hammer home the urgency of the bill. That's as per a report in the West Australian on Friday afternoon. Minister, could you please table the letter from the government to the opposition that this article and this report is referring to—a letter written on Friday from Minister King to Senator Susan McDonald. 13:12 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Again, the contribution just now from Senator Hanson-Young goes to motivation. The reason that the government is bringing forward this bill—and I have canvassed this extensively over the period of the committee stage—is because we think it is in the national interest for there to be an orderly, predictable and certain means of regulating projects that engage issues around the London protocol, particularly the transport and movement of carbon dioxide. I haven't heard anyone, in the contributions so far, suggest that regulating projects of that kind would be a bad idea. I think it should be within the ability of this chamber to agree that, if a project were brought forward that involved the transport or movement of carbon dioxide, we'd want it to be regulated consistent with the arrangements in the London protocol. That is the motivation for bringing forward the legislation. In assessing our national interests, of course, any good government, any party of government, has regard to the broadest possible range of stakeholders. The suggestion in the contributions in the last while from Senator Hanson-Young that there is something improper about engaging business stakeholders or engaging international partners around the approach we take to decarbonisation is odd and troubling. This is a significant economic transformation of our economy between now and 2050. Of course we should listen to the broadest possible group of people and of course we should communicate our intentions clearly to those stakeholders. I don't have a copy of the letter that you referred to. In fact, Senator Hanson-Young, I haven't actually seen the newspaper article you referred to. I note your questions, and, if I can update the Senate, I will. 13:15 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia We're debating what the government is putting to us as a very important piece of legislation, and in relation to the Senate's passage of this legislation the Minister for Resources has written to the opposition demanding that the parliament pass this bill not just to regulate this system for some use that we don't know of further down the track. She quotes in this letter, according to the article in the West Australian on Friday 10 November, published at 6.18 pm—the article was titled 'Gas investment under threat as sea dumping bill stalls in the Senate'. This letter that Minister King wrote, reportedly, to Senator Susan McDonald in this place on Friday is actually about the $30 billion worth of investment. It's not, 'Let's set up this regulation in case somebody wants to use this technology in the future.' This is to underpin and support the further expansion of fossil fuels. That is what it is reported that Minister King's letter says. And if we're going to debate this piece of legislation in here—the government is saying we've really got to get it done; it's pressuring those on the other side to get it done—then the Senate should see this letter. It seems as though there's a very different opinion coming from the resources minister as to why this bill is important and necessary and urgent to pass as opposed to the very clear and methodical reasons that Senator McAllister has made. I understand that this bill is in the name of the environment minister, but it is absolutely crystal clear that the minister who wants this bill more than any other is Minister King, the Minister for Resources, aka the minister for Santos, the minister for Woodside, the minister for fossil fuels. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 217241 Excuse me, Senator Hanson-Young. Senator Scarr? Senator Scarr 282997 Point or order: personal reflection. It is an awful personal reflection to say that a minister, who is a minister for the people of Australia and who has obligations as a minister, is a minister for a particular company. I request that the senator withdraw. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Hanson-Young, a senator has asked that you withdraw in terms of your reflection upon the minister. If you could withdraw, please. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U I will withdraw, Chair. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U Minister King is clearly pushing for this piece of legislation to pass this chamber because of the pressure from Woodside and Santos, because of the interests of Woodside and Santos and the interests of the $30 billion worth of investment in the fossil fuel industry. It is about expanding coal and gas; that's what this bill is about—facilitating the expansion of carbon pollution. And we know what is going to happen if we keep making more and more pollution. It's going to drive climate change over the cliff. The planet is already sick. The environment is already suffering. We are already suffering and we can see the reality of what the climate crisis means for our environment, for our communities—heatwaves, bushfires, floods. The government want to talk out of both sides of their mouths. The reason this bill was brought forward by the environment minister was for some pretence that somehow this is about the environment. Meanwhile, the person out doing the spin, out doing the political pressure, out being the mouthpiece for the fossil fuel industry, is indeed the Minister for Resources. Please get the letter and table it so we can see it for ourselves. Senator Scarr 282997 I rise on a point of order of personal reflection. Accusing a minister of being a mouth piece for a particular company is totally disorderly. Again, I ask you, Temporary Chair McGrath, to ask the senator withdraw. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 217241 Senator Hanson-Young, if you could please withdraw. 13:20 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I'll withdraw. I do find it extraordinary that we're debating who calls the shots in this parliament and who calls the shots in the government. We know this piece of legislation is wanted and is being desperately lobbied for by the fossil fuel industry because they've been on the phone and in the corridors. They have been hassling senators in this place to hurry up and pass the bill. We know that they've hassled not just coalition members but members of the crossbench, so the squeeze is on. It's just fascinating, isn't it? You can't call it out without upsetting someone. They get all a bit tetchy in here. The protection racket for the fossil fuel industry in this chamber is out of control. I'll ask again: Will the minister undertake to get a copy of the letter Minister King sent to Senator Susan McDonald, a member of this chamber, and have it tabled so that we can all see it for ourselves? 13:22 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I refer the senator to the answer I provided earlier. 13:22 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I'd like clarification. I'm not sure I heard whether the minister would undertake to find that letter and to table it? I'm not trying to be obtuse here; I'm genuinely trying to understand whether Senator McAllister has undertaken to find the letter and table it. It's a request. I'm asking whether or not the minister will do that? 13:22 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I have provided an answer. I will update the chamber, if I may, but I don't have a copy of the letter with me. 13:23 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Well, we could be here all night. I'm sure we could find a copy of that letter somehow in order for the minister to perhaps help this debate to move on. I would like to know whether the government over the weekend had any urgent conversations or meetings with anyone outside the department or this parliament in relation to this bill? 13:24 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales As I've indicated many times, government ministers are regularly engaged with constituents, stakeholders, in their areas of portfolio responsibility. I'm not in a position to provide detailed information about every government minister, the activities of every government minister's office or indeed the departments they administer to the chamber. However, I would put it to the chamber, as I have on many occasions, that it's quite a normal thing for governments to consult with stakeholders. 13:24 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Minister, I think Senator Hanson-Young has hit on one of the core concerns with the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023. We had a discussion on Monday or Tuesday about who took carriage of this bill when. It was under drafting under the previous government, and there was some sort of crossover between Minister Bowen and Minister Plibersek. It ultimately was given to Minister Plibersek to take carriage of. That was my understanding. Maybe it was Minister Plibersek the whole time. I'll correct the record: it was Minister Plibersek the whole time. But there's been some involvement from Minister Bowen's office, I assume, given advisers from his office are here. But we're hearing again and again stories of the resources minister's involvement in this bill. If this bill was about the things that you told us for five days that it was about—the London protocol and all sorts of regulatory certainty—and was not about expanding the gas industry, why is the resources minister the one being lobbied and lobbying the shadow minister on this bill? It doesn't make sense. It doesn't line up with what we heard from you for a week—that it was about regulatory certainty and it wasn't about Santos. I think Senator Whish-Wilson probably asked a dozen times about the link with legislation that Minister Bowen has been talking about in various forums—legislation that would come forward to help the gas industry—and you wouldn't even say: 'Yep, that's it. This is what we're debating here today. We've talked about it and now we're delivering it.' You wouldn't say that, but it's very clear, after what Minister Wong told us on Friday, that this is it. We're going to have the safeguard mechanism, which on face value will bring down emissions, but we're going to introduce an 'opening the loopholes bill', the sea dumping bill, to create some loopholes under the safeguard mechanism to allow the expansion of the fossil fuel industry. It's no wonder Australians are concerned. We've had a back-and-forth about political donations. The Labor Party decided that tobacco was creating many issues for people in our communities and it wasn't worth taking big tobacco donations anymore. Climate change is affecting more people and having more of an impact than tobacco ever could have, yet you're still taking political donations from, among many others, the three companies that Minister Wong named here. Santos, Woodside and INPEX. So of course Australians, in the absence of answers to questions or provision of letters that are directly relevant to this bill, are going to ask questions and say: 'Hang on. What is going on here? How can you make donations, and not even that big a donation—60 grand? You'd think the government was worth more than that. But what's happening here?' Today we learn that the NT Chief Minister, Natasha Fyles, allegedly holds shares in an oil and gas giant backing the proposed Middle Arm development. This is the Labor Chief Minister who's been pushing fracking in the NT and pushing for the development of something that is not in line with the NT being habitable. We know from the latest IPCC report that, if we continue down this road, large swathes of the NT will be uninhabitable. But she's pushing it, and today we learn that, allegedly, she actually has shares in one of these companies. Australians are right to question this tangled web of fossil fuel companies, major parties and political donations, because the decisions we're seeing aren't in the interests of Australians. They're not in the interests of our family members and the communities that we represent. They're in the interests of Santos, INPEX, Woodside, Japan and Korea. Let's put Australians first. Let's put our communities first in this place. Progress reported. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 28 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Cybersecurity 28 13:30 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia Last week the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union reached a final agreement on a law to create the European Digital Identity or eID, the EU's first fully digital identification system. This law will provide Europeans with a digital wallet containing digital versions of their ID cards—their drivers licences, their academic certificates, their medical records, their bank account information and so on. The next major step in the EU will be to create a digital euro and a central bank digital currency, which is currently being developed by the European Central Bank. I've been warning about digital ID for some time, and it wasn't so long ago that, like many of these issues which turn out to be correct, it was considered to be nothing but a conspiracy theory. Closer to home, the Labor government will soon introduce an Australian version of the digital ID legislation. Consultation on that bill has recently closed. You can see how it's going to happen: we'll get a digital currency and, once those steps are in place, a digital snare trap will have been created. We saw how that worked a couple of years ago with the financial cancellation of the Canadian truckers when they were protesting COVID lockdowns and restrictions. The advancement of technology is inevitable, but this push towards a digital ID future is another step towards a Chinese Communist Party-style social credit system, which will force you to support the current thing at the risk of total cancellation. We must reject a digital ID future, and time is running out for people in this place to understand that they are playing with fire. Parliamentary Friends of Nutrition 28 13:32 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise today to speak about the informative Parliamentary Friends of Nutrition event this morning, which I co-convened with the member for Bass. I thank and acknowledge Dietitians Australia, in particular Natalie Stapleton, for their continued work. Today's event was about healthy food for a healthy mind or good nutrition for a better headspace. This is extremely timely because we know that mental health, anxiety and depression are huge issues facing communities across our country. These illnesses must be combatted with multiple strategies—seeing a psychiatrist or a psychologist, practising mindfulness, potentially medication, exercising, and eating and drinking in a healthy and nutritious way. We know that some people across communities are having to wait up to six months to see a mental health specialist, so implementing at-home strategies before you can see one of those specialists is fundamental to getting well and feeling more like your old self. The Albanese government's Medicare urgent care clinics are part of the holistic strategy to combat mental health issues, and the minister for health, the Hon. Mark Butler, is acutely aware of the need for greater access to psychologists and psychiatrists. Eating a well-balanced and nutritious diet can improve mood. Studies are now proving that eating more vegetables can actually improve and lift your mood, even for people that have been on antidepressants for years. We know the full benefits that are there for those who change their eating habits. All evidence is now pointing to better gut health as fundamental to protecting you against such diseases as many of our cancers. More fruit and vegetables are crucial to a well-balanced diet. Once again, thank you to Dietitians Australia for what you do each and every day, making Australia healthier. (Time expired) Youth Voice in Parliament 28 13:34 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Today I'm going to read a speech from Maddy Nyp, a young person from the electorate of Mayo in my home state of South Australia. It is part of the Raise Our Voice in Parliament campaign, which amplifies the voices of young people and their visions for the future. Maddy writes: At a family gathering yesterday, I spoke to my parents about what the next generation might look like. In the back of my head, I had this nagging whisper. It told of a little girl raised in an era of climate change, tugging on my sleeve while fires race across our lucky country. In this not-quite memory, she asks me, "Mum, why didn't you stop this?" That night, I tried to think of an answer. Do you have one? I still haven't figured it out. I participated in Raise Our Voice two years ago. Back then I was asking politely, but now, I'm begging. The change I would make to Australia is simple: we need to start being a country of decisive and explicit climate action. Because then, in that worst-case scenario, I can tell the next generation I tried. Can you tell them the same? I hope so. In all of this, I must remind myself that the future isn't predetermined. There is a world where my daughters celebrate the sheer determination of our country in the face of climate change. I beg you, help me to make that reality. Act, for the sake of the next generation. National Survivors' Day 28 13:35 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia This week we celebrate National Survivors' Day, a day where we recognise and acknowledge the courage and journey of survivors of sexual abuse and institutional sexual abuse. The 2017 royal commission into child sexual abuse, which heard from nearly 7,000 survivors, exposed the breadth of this criminality in Australia and its pervasiveness in institutions many of us were raised to trust and even revere. In response to the royal commission's findings the federal parliament legislated the National Redress Scheme. The scheme had the simple intention of providing financial and emotional support to victims of sexual abuse, many of whom never reached their full potential because of their experiences in the earliest and often most vulnerable parts of their lives. Like all significant government projects, the implementation of the National Redress Scheme has not been perfect, but that's not to say it hasn't made a difference. As of November the National Redress Scheme has recognised the claims of more than 13,000 survivors and paid more than $1 billion in compensation. Yet, as is so often the case, a challenge persists in getting the resources to where they are most needed. In August the Joint Standing Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme heard of the significant difficulties in raising awareness in remote Indigenous communities in my home state of Western Australia, where it is arguably needed most urgently. This committee, of which I am proud to serve as the deputy chair and of which I was the chair in the former parliament, will continue to probe these areas of concern until the scheme reaches its full potential. Survivors deserve nothing less. I would also like to use this week to take the opportunity to thank Tuart Place, a small organisation based in Fremantle Western Australia. It wasn't so long ago that Tuart Place was threatened with eviction from its home on High Street, Fremantle. But Tuart Place won the fight to stay there in an quaint old building on one of Fremantle's main streets. We thank them for the great work they do for many survivors, and we hope they will continue to be able to do that great into the future. Bush-Blanasi, Dr 29 13:37 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory It is with deep sadness that I inform the Senate of the passing of Dr Bush-Blanasi who died last night. Dr Bush-Blenasi was the second-longest serving Chairman of the Northern Land Council as he served for four consecutive terms. He was also the Northern Territory Australian of the Year this year, and his sudden passing last night has brought great distress to his family and the Northern Land Council's staff and representatives across the Northern Territory. The offices of the Northern Land Council will be closed this week. The mother of Dr Bush-Blanasi's mother was a Yolngu woman from the Blue Mud Bay region, and he was raised by a Mayili man from Wugularr (Beswick) community. He will be forever remembered for leading the Northern Land Council and dedicating his life to serving Aboriginal communities in the Top End. He represented the Katherine region, and he served as deputy chair for three terms and led the NLC as chair for four consecutive terms. The Northern Land Council has put out a statement saying its organisation is stronger for his leadership and will benefit from his legacy for years to come. He was also very passionately for the Uluru Statement from the Heart and supported very much the constitutional change to our country. Sadly that did not occur, and I know that he was pivotal in giving advice and guidance to our government in our preparation for the referendum. My heartfelt condolences go to his children, to brothers and sisters, to Julie, to all of those who called him family. From the Borroloola families and all our families, and from the Senate and the Australian parliament, thank you for your service to our country and to First Nations people in Australia. Renewable Energy: Wind Farms 29 13:39 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, it has been only a few weeks since my last speech drawing attention to financial losses and failures in the wind energy scam. Today, we have more. Europe's largest onshore wind turbine installation, Markbygden, has filed for bankruptcy protection. If completed, it would have consisted of 1,101 wind turbines and 750 kilometres of access roads. Escalating construction costs meant the project can no longer bid electricity into the grid at a price the grid operator can afford. As I explained last week, there are not enough mines to mine the materials, not enough steel mills to make the steel nor enough special-purpose ships to bring them across the world. This is just economic cost. The environmental cost no longer factors into the equation. As an example, the Clarke Creek Wind Farm west of Rockhampton hit the news in the last two weeks, when their environmental impact study caused real environmentalists, like One Nation, outrage. The environmental impact statement admitted that the most severe impact of the proposal will be on the skulls of any koalas beaten to death for trespassing on the project's land. Offshore wind in Australia has had a bad week, too, with BlueFloat withdrawing their plans for offshore wind in the Shoalhaven area of New South Wales. BlueFloat's proposal was for a 359 square kilometre area with 105 turbines located 14 to 30 kilometres of the Illawarra coastline. Each turbine would have a diameter of 275 metres and feed into three offshore substations. What an insane idea. One strong storm, and the whole lot winds up on the beach. Saltwater corrosion repair now accounts for 30 per cent of the levelised cost of electricity from offshore wind turbines. Offshore wind is unprofitable from the perspective of construction and maintenance costs. It's time to have another look at clean coal before the green movement has us all sitting in the dark with a fridge full of inedible, spoiled food. Tasmania: Tourism Industry 30 13:41 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania There are many reasons to love the Tasman Peninsula, a cluster of tight-knit communities in the south of my home state of Tasmania. The region is steeped in Tasmania's convict past. It's where you go if you want to visit historic convict site Port Arthur or the Dog Line at Eaglehawk Neck. It is this history that has allowed a thriving tourism industry to flourish in the area, but it's also the reason that many small businesses are held back. The Tasman Peninsula is home to a thriving small-business community that is bolstered by the strong tourism industry, particularly over the summer months. However, its remoteness, which is a drawcard for tourists, is also a pitfall when it comes to running a business, especially with limited options for banking, postage and access to the internet. They are often left to the mercy of technology. What's refreshing about the Tasman Peninsula, though, is that small business owners here don't let these things stop them from sharing what they love about their region with the growing number of tourists to the area. Look at places like the Tasmanian Chocolate Foundry, which is located at Taranna and manufactures hand forged products using Belgian couverture chocolate, or look at the owners of Tasman Honey, a family owned business located at Murdunna, which has operated in the community for many years. Owner Ian Kingston produces honey from hundreds of hives located across the peninsula and operates a tourist shop at his honey cellar door. The cellar door also has educational installations including a see-through hive that allows you to see the bees in action, producing honey. The educational installations were made by a young family member, and Ian himself built the see-through panels to show the hives. The people of the Tasman Peninsula are hardworking and passionate about their town and region and have adapted to the challenges of their remoteness to provide a unique and exciting experience for tourists. If you are looking for somewhere to go on your next holiday, I encourage you to come to Tasmania, and the Tasmanian Peninsula should definitely be on your list. Youth Voice in Parliament 30 13:43 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Today, I have the privilege of participating in the Youth Voice in Parliament campaign, which asks Australians aged 21 or under to write a speech on what our parliament should accomplish for their local MP to read. Zane is one of my Victorian constituents, and I'm delighted to share his story: While us Australians are suffering through a financial crisis, while climate change is screaming at us for real action, our government actively chooses to squander more than $350 billion over 30 years on a few nuclear-powered submarines. For Australia's sake—for Australia's youth's sake—our government must cease the blind militarisation of Australia and dangerous heightening of Pacific tension. At best, these submarines mean improved Australian security against China, our largest trading partner, leading to the crumbling of diplomatic relations between us. At worst, they increase the risk of a hot war between Australia and China—one which comes at a tremendous cost to our youths' safety and security. n the other hand, spending this money on the construction of hospitals, roads and houses as well as action on the cost-of-living crisis and climate change, would directly benefit all Australians in the short and long term. Instead of wasting the money of hardworking Australians on war with our biggest trading partner, why doesn't our government opt to give $350 billion back to the people of Australia? Our government must pull out of the senseless submarine deal no matter what the cost because the cost of remaining in it is ever more detrimental to the economy, safety and security of the Australian people. Migration 30 13:45 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria Whenever I travel abroad and return home, I am always reminded of just how amazing our country is and how lucky we are to live in Australia. I've never been to another country that's as good, obviously. Now, Australia is not only blessed with great natural beauty; we are also blessed with abundant mineral resources and, as a result, we have a great quality of life. But what really makes this country special is the society that we have created: a society that allows individuals to flourish in an atmosphere of tolerance and peace. This is why millions of people have chosen to say goodbye to their country of birth and call Australia home. My family did it, and it was obviously the best decision that we ever made. Now, Australia has welcomed people from all over the world, and many of them have fled violence, torture, war or tyranny. Despite—or perhaps because of—that hardship that so many have fled, Australia has become a haven of peace and of prosperity. The reason is obviously simple. Almost everyone who comes here leaves behind the hatred that poisoned their existence and commits to our peaceful, democratic way of life. To those who bring violence and hatred to our streets, my message is actually quite simple: if you want to live here in Australia, you have to love Australia. You must love our culture and you must strive to make our great nation even better. Leave behind your feuds. Leave behind your vendettas. They have no place in our beautiful country. If you want to pursue those things, I've got a simple thing to tell you: Australia doesn't need or want you. See you later. Youth Voice in Parliament Week 31 13:47 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales This is a speech by Aarna Gupta and a part of the Raise Our Voice Australia initiative. Gender equality is a human right, not a female fight. Greetings to anyone listening. My name is Aarna Gupta, and I'm from the centre of excellence and Richmond high school campus. Often, when one thinks about gender equality, they associate it with the female gender. However, this is an incorrect statement. Females shouldn't be the ones fighting for equal pay, respect and the same appreciation. To begin with, let us recognise that gender equality benefits everyone. It is not a zero-sum game where one gender gains at the expense of another. When women have the same opportunity and rights as men, society as a whole benefits. Studies have shown that gender-diverse teams are more innovative and companies with more women in leadership positions perform better financially. Moreover, when women have control over their reproductive choices, family sizes tend to decrease, leading to improved economic prospects for families and societies. The fight for gender equality is not about pitting one gender against the other; it is about addressing challenging, harmful stereotypes and dismantling the rigid gender roles that restrict both women and men. It's about giving everyone the freedom to pursue their passions, ambitions and potential without being constrained by societal expectations based on their gender. Aarna, thank you for your inspiring speech on gender equality. Your voice is one of the most powerful things that you possess. I encourage you to keep using it to fight for what you believe in and for the rights of others. Tasmania: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia 31 13:49 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania The Tasmanian state government has handed down a deadline to the feds: cough up $15 million for the new Burnie Court Complex by the end of February next year. Why? So that the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia can have a permanent home. I've written to the federal Attorney-General to back in this request. I think it makes sense. But you know what? I'm frustrated. It's taken so long to get to this point. I was calling for this solution back in June. When the former Tasmanian Attorney-General was asked about the Federal Circuit and Family Court having a home in the new Burnie court earlier this year, she was quoted as saying: 'This is the feds' problem. They'll have to find their own solution.' It's taken five months for the state government to get on board with what the community and the legal profession were calling for. Everyone was more interested in playing the political blame game rather than actually solving the problem. Now that we're on the same page, the federal government should grant this funding request. I know the price is a bit steep—$15 million is a lot of money for one courtroom—but let's consider the alternative: there isn't one. Unless the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia is housed in the new complex, it probably won't have a permanent home in Burnie at all. If there's an alternative venue that's available has longevity and offers the security that the Family Court requires at a cheaper price, I'm open to it. But they haven't yet managed to find a suitable building on the north-west coast that can offer all of this. If they do end up at home in the Burnie Court Complex, there should be an agreement that the Federal Circuit and Family Court can't be squeezed out of it again. It's not rocket science that the Family Court should operate out of an actual courtroom. Let's hope common sense succeeds, just this once. Middle East 31 13:51 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Senator Wong, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, has recently called for steps towards a ceasefire in Gaza. These comments are emblematic of a broader problem: the Australian government's lack of moral clarity and resultant failure to take decisive action. Advocating for steps towards a ceasefire is just another way of saying that you don't currently support a ceasefire. While the bombs are raining down, while Gaza is being obliterated, along with thousands of people who live there, that is simply unacceptable. The semantic subtlety used by Senator Wong serves not to advance peace but to avoid the urgent need for action from, and accountability for, the State of Israel. While the Australian government was quick to condemn the atrocities committed by Hamas, and rightly so, it's been disturbingly reticent to address the disproportionate, aggressive actions of the State of Israel in Gaza. The weasel words and failure to call for a ceasefire are excusing and enabling the suffering that is being inflicted on Palestinian people right now in Gaza, as we speak. Failing to call for a ceasefire while Gaza and thousands of people, including thousands of children and hundreds of babies, are being obliterated from the face of the earth is a moral failure of such magnitude it is barely comprehensible. We need a ceasefire now. We need to end the slaughter in Gaza now. If we are not capable of calling for those things, what use are we? Victoria: North Bellarine Aquatic Centre 32 13:53 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria The opening of the North Bellarine Aquatic Centre in Drysdale is a dream come true. It is backed by $10 million from the former coalition government and $5.5 million from council. I'm immensely proud to have worked so closely with the community to deliver this wonderful asset for the North Bellarine. The magnificent 50-metre outdoor pool is heated all year round, and along with change rooms, meeting areas, kiosk and lawns will deliver major dividends for community health, wellbeing and water safety. Situated across the road from three local schools, it's also a wonderful facility for thousands of local students. But delivering the North Bellarine Aquatic Centre has not been without its challenges. In the face of the state Labor government refusing to fund a new pool for the North Bellarine after Portarlington's pool closed down, my vision was to build an aquatic centre in two stages, which would force Labor to the table. In 2019, as the member for Corangamite, I secured this $10 million to build the pool, which was backed by large sections of the community, including local swimming clubs, while federal and state Labor declined to make any funding commitment. Of course, that has now meant that federal and state Labor have come to the table for a stage 2 indoor pool, which is a wonderful outcome for our community. Construction of the indoor pool complex adjacent to the outdoor pool will start next year. It is regrettable that the Albanese government tried to sink stage 1 of the North Bellarine Aquatic Centre by attempting to terminate its funding agreement with council and shut down construction of the outdoor pool—remarkably, after works had begun. Labor's divisive campaign against the coalition's plan to deliver this aquatic centre in two stages was very, very regrettable. I want to thank Trent Sullivan, Stephanie Asher and our wonderful community for delivering such a wonderful asset for our region. Workplace Relations 32 13:55 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Amazon is one of the richest companies in the world, and it's driving a global race to the bottom of labour standards and tax avoidance. The space buccaneer Jeff Bezos sits on US$162 billion dollars while his workforce in Australia and around the world are pushed beyond their limits. To take on a global giant like Amazon you need a global movement. That's why the first ever Summit to Make Amazon Pay was held in Manchester last month. The summit drew Amazon workers, unions, civil groups, regulators and parliamentarians from around the world. As UNI Global Union's general secretary, Christy Hoffman, said, we must use 'our collective power to end Amazon's brutality towards workers and its impact on our communities'. We're taking on Jeff Bezos through the closing loopholes bill. Amazon hires flex drivers as subcontractors in order to pay them less than the minimum wage, and warehouse workers are labour hire casuals on 28 per cent less pay than direct employees. Our legislation closes the Bezos loopholes. When we talk about the cost of living, this is where you see who stands with whom. We stand with thousands of Australian Amazon workers who are being squeezed. The Liberals and Nationals stand with corporate buccaneers and the loopholes they use to rip off Aussies. They stand with Joyce, Goyder and the Qantas board and the labour hire loophole. When there's a loophole that bad employers can use to rip off people, you can be sure that the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton, will be there to back it in. Good employers are left behind, because the only plan the Liberals and Nationals have for our economy is low wages, insecure work and massive profits for foreign corporates, all at the expense of hardworking Australians. Cost of Living 32 13:57 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria With the recent interest rate rise and cost-of-living pressures, we know Australians are doing it tough right now. That is why the Albanese government are doing all we can to make things a little easier for women, children and families. Those opposite say they care, but their actions tell a different story. They voted against cheaper energy bills, against cheaper child care and against cheaper medicines. But on this side of the chamber, we back our words with action. Our 10-point cost-of-living plan is delivering $23 billion of support targeted to where it's needed most. I'll give a couple of examples of what they are. We know energy bills are one of the biggest challenges for families. Since July this year, we've been delivering up to $500 in electricity bill relief for eligible families. We're already hearing that some households are saving up to 18 per cent on their bills because of Labor's energy market intervention. For an average four-person household in Victoria, that's a saving of around $250 a year. We know that bulk-bill medical services are getting harder and harder to find, with many GPs across the country moving towards private billing. So to support Australian families, we've tripled the bulk-billing Medicare incentive because we don't want people to have to choose between seeing a doctor and putting food on the table. We are making child care cheaper for 1.2 million households. In practical terms, this means that if your family's combined income is $120,000 you will save around $1,700 a year with one child in care, thanks to Labor. On top of this, we're expanding paid parental leave. We also have 180,000 families who receive paid parental leave each year who will benefit from this scheme. The scheme supports mothers' health and wellbeing, encourages dads and other partners to take leave and gives families flexibility to choose how they share care. We know that good women's policy is also good economic policy, and this investment promotes parenting as an equal partnership while boosting the economy. The PRESIDENT 112096 The time for two-minute statements has expired. We'll go to question time. MINISTRY 33 MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements 33 13:59 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I advise of changes to ministerial arrangements. Senator Farrell will be absent from question time this week on account of ministerial business overseas. I know that that is going to be hard to hear, Senator Birmingham! Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU They actually groaned! In his absence, ministers will represent portfolios at question time in accordance with the letter circulated to the President, party leaders and Independent senators. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 33 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Asylum Seekers 33 14:00 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Today, the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs confirmed that 80 asylum seekers being held in immigration detention were released almost immediately following last week's High Court ruling. The minister has said there will be strict conditions attached to the new visas that have been issued. What are these conditions, and what are the consequences for an individual who violates these visa conditions? 14:01 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Cash. As I said yesterday and as we said last week, we will use all available powers to keep the community safe, and the government will also consider all legislative and regulatory options. As you would know, Senator Cash, through you, President, last week the High Court handed down a decision which required the release of an individual from immigration detention. Whilst the Commonwealth argued against this, obviously, the High Court has made a different decision. We have prepared for this outcome, given the case's significance, and community safety is the No. 1 priority throughout this process. I can advise the chamber that the Australian Federal Police and Australian Border Force are working closely with state and territory authorities and that a joint operation was established on Friday. I am also advised that visas were issued to impacted individuals with strong mandatory conditions to ensure community safety is upheld. I would again emphasise that, as a decision of the High Court of Australia, the government is bound to implement it. I was asked about conditions. I'm advised that these include, for example, requirements to report regularly to the Department of Home Affairs and to inform the minister of changes to personal details, including address and social media profiles, restrictions on industries of employment and a range of other strict conditions. The government will continue to consider all measures that may be available to strengthen the protection of the community in this case. I also can indicate that a number of other people, around 90, have so far been assessed as being in similar circumstances to the original plaintiff. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, first supplementary? 14:03 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia What types of offences were the 80 individuals released into the community convicted of? 14:03 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Obviously, the shadow minister was a minister in the government which put in place the form of the arrangements for detention which the High Court has now found to be unconstitutional, and I assume she would be familiar through that process of the— Senator Paterson 144138 It was a 20-year precedent. It was under you as well. Senator WONG 00AOU Agreed. It is a 20-year precedent. She would be aware of some of the offences of those who are in this position. Again, as I say, the government do not have a choice as to whether or not we release these individuals. These individuals are required to be released as a consequence of the High Court of Australia's judgement. Senator Cash I0M I raise a point of order in relation to relevance. I did specifically ask what type of offences the 80 individuals released into the community were convicted of. The PRESIDENT 112096 The minister is being relevant to the question. Minister, did you have anything further to add? Senator WONG 00AOU I am advised—and I will check this—that not all individuals have been convicted, but, if there is further information I can provide, I will do so. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, second supplementary? 14:04 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Has the government consulted the communities into which these individuals have been released? 14:04 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Again, I would make the point to Senator Cash that any government, even the government she was part of, would be required to follow the High Court's ruling. Senator Henderson ZN4 I understood you were going to wait for the reasons? Senator WONG 00AOU I'm sorry? Would you like to say something? Senator WONG 00AOU Any government, including a government such as those opposite were part of, is bound to follow the High Court. We are doing so. We are seeking— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, on a point of order? Senator Cash I0M Again, I rise on a point of order: relevance. With all due respect, I didn't ask about the High Court decision; I asked whether or not the government consulted the communities into which these individuals have been released. The PRESIDENT 112096 I'll remind the senator of your question. Senator WONG 00AOU Your question—people are being released because of a High Court decision, so I would again make the point. I understand that the shadow minister wants to make a political point with this. This is a very difficult situation that the government is seeking to deal with. Senator Cash I0M Again, I rise on a point of order in relation to relevance. Again, with all due respect, I didn't ask about the High Court decision; I asked whether or not—yes or no—the government consulted the communities into which these 80 people have been released? The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Cash, the minister is being relevant to the question. Senator WONG 00AOU I will make two points. You might wish to ignore the High Court decision but that is why this is occurring. You might wish to ignore it. (Time expired) Economy 34 14:06 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. How is the government's economic management underpinning resilience in the Australian economy in the face of global uncertainty? Can the minister outline how the government's policies are contributing to the robust employment and wages growth, to significant private and public investment, and to ensuring Australia's economy remains resilient amidst the uncertain global outlook? How is this work supporting Australians feeling the pressure from cost of living? 14:06 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Payman for the important question that she asked today. In these globally challenging times, our fiscal management is acting as pressure against the inflation challenge we see across the economy. Fitch, the international ratings agency, has recently reaffirmed Australia's AAA credit rating, underscoring the strength of our fiscal strategy. This is not just a tick of approval; it is an endorsement of our budget approach that balances the need of the present, including cost-of-living measures to provide relief to Australian families, with our long-term economic ambitions. On this side, we understand that Australians are doing it tough and that is why we acted with that significant cost-of-living package across the October and May budgets. The latest figures from the ABS demonstrate that our cost-of-living policies have already trimmed the CPI by half a percentage point in the last quarter alone. The contrast is clear. We have a plan and we are delivering on that plan. Those opposite have done just one thing; they have opposed cost-of-living relief from Australians at every turn. When we look at examples of the benefits of those opposite who have appeared to have collective amnesia, Mr Dutton and the coalition have opposed cheaper energy, opposed cheaper medicines, opposed more Medicare bulk-billing, opposed fee-free TAFE, opposed affordable housing, opposed the expansion of paid parental leave and they have always opposed getting wages moving again. The opposition is confused about even the most basic principles of economic management. For example— An opposition senator interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING I know you don't like this. For example, the shadow Treasurer in the AFR on 21 July 2022 said, 'With inflation rising in Australia and around the world, it is time to restore the budget to a more sustainable footing,' but then went on to argue that Labor should spend more money on subsidising fuel, a massive increase in defence spending— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payman, a first supplementary? 14:09 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia You are right. The opposition are good at opposing every good reform out there. With the cost of living impacting households across the nation, can the minister detail how the Albanese government's policies such as the energy rebates and the Housing Australia Future Fund are directly providing relief to Australians, and whether these measures have been recognised by any independent bodies as contributing to a reduction in inflation? 14:09 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Payman for her supplementary question and for her focus on providing relief to Australians at this time. The government fully appreciates that every dollar counts for Australian families, and we have confirmed that independent analysis has affirmed that cost-of-living measures of our government are delivering for Australians and also assisting with the moderation in inflation, as a direct result of our interventions. This shows that our budget strategy is right for the time and right for the challenges we confront and is helping to support Australia through these difficult times. Through initiatives like our changes to bulk billing and cheaper medicines, we're providing immediate relief when it's most needed, but we're also making long-term investments that will provide social dividends. Moreover, our Housing Australia Future Fund is a investing in more than just bricks and mortar; it's investing in the future of Australian communities by planning for 30,000 new social and affordable homes. And our Rewiring the Nation plan isn't just about making cheaper electricity generation available— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payman, a second supplementary? 14:10 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia Thank you, Minister. In addressing the current cost-of-living and inflation pressures, could the minister update the Senate on the outcomes of the government's initiatives such as the recent expansion of the Medicare bulk billing incentives and the reduction in medicine costs and how these are benefiting Australian families, pensioners and concession card holders? 14:11 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Payman for focusing on those cost-of-living measures that are so important for Australian households. The expansion of Medicare bulk billing incentives is a concrete example of our commitment to ensuring that pensioners, families and concession card holders can see their GP without the stress of additional costs. That's not just because we're seeking to ease inflation pressures; it's also because we believe in Medicare. We believe in Medicare and the fact that Australians need to be able to access accessible and affordable health care. And our commitment isn't just to helping Australians to see the GP. The reduction in the prices of medicines is another critical cost-of-living relief measure that is directly benefiting millions of Australians. It's a sharp departure from the track record of those opposite, whose policies often left the most vulnerable behind. Our government is dedicated to a fair go for all, especially during these tough times. Protest Activity 35 14:12 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. On Friday night, the Jewish Shabbat, pro-Palestinian protests turned violent and forced the Jewish congregants at a nearby synagogue to return home for their own safety. The Jewish Community Council of Victoria, said that the violent incident 'impacted on Jewish life in Melbourne and created a heightened sense of fear and anxiety in our community.' On Saturday a pro-Palestinian motorcade deliberately drove through Sydney's Eastern Suburbs in actions that cannot be interpreted in any way other than to intimidate Australia's Jewish community. Has the Prime Minister spoken with representatives of the Jewish community since these incidents? And what actions has the Albanese government taken since Friday night to better ensure the safety of Jewish Australians? 14:12 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Can I first say that I thought the events that we saw in Caulfield were utterly unacceptable, and they must not be repeated. I was also concerned about some of the footage of the events in the Eastern Suburbs of Sydney that you reference. In relation to what occurred in Caulfield, we know—and you have seen that I've said this publicly, Senator—that having a protest near a synagogue was not the right thing to do. It shouldn't be repeated, and the organisers have apologised, which is the right thing to do. I again want to reaffirm publicly—you asked what we've done, and I will repeat what I've said publicly, including yesterday—that the Jewish community in this country has a right to feel safe and to be safe. All Australians have a right to feel safe and to be safe. And no-one in this country should be fearful because of who they are or the faith they practise. We have been very clear, including in this chamber, that there is no place for hateful prejudice in our society, that there is no place for anti-Semitism, that there is no place for racism and that there is no place for Islamophobia. So, I understand how those events have been extremely difficult for members of the Jewish community. I understand how distressing the current conflict is for a lot of Australians, and I reiterate what I said yesterday: let us not let distress turn to division. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson, first supplementary? 14:14 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Australia's Jewish community has expressed concern about the attempt by the Albanese government to link these violent scenes to Islamophobia. Does the government unequivocally condemn the targeting of Jewish Australians witnessed in both Melbourne and Sydney, and the rise in antisemitic behaviour being witnessed across Australia? 14:15 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'm not sure what you mean by the suggestion 'link'. We take a consistent position, and I think you know me well enough, Senator Paterson—I take a consistent position, where I stand and the government stands against all prejudice and all racism. That was a particularly upsetting and frightening event, and I think that the organisers apologising is the right thing to do. But I won't make an apology for always standing against all forms of prejudice and racism; we should. We should be clear in this country: no-one should feel fearful because they are a member of the Jewish community and they practise the Jewish faith, no-one should be fearful because they are a practising Muslim, no-one should be fearful because they are an Aboriginal Australian or an Asian—we have a consistent position— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson, second supplementary? 14:16 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria While, appropriately, standing against hate crimes or acts of any sort, will the government undertake not to draw false equivalences in the future and to unequivocally condemn antisemitism when it occurs, as it should unequivocally condemn any other hate crime or act when it occurs? 14:16 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I have unequivocally condemned antisemitism in this role and in every role I have ever held, just as I condemn Islamophobia and all racism. You use those words; I say it's moral consistency. It's moral consistency, and that is what we will continue to demonstrate. Gaza: Casualties 36 14:17 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Over 11,000 civilians have been killed in the bombing and invasion of Gaza, including 4,000 children. The government said it's concerned by the number of deaths but, clearly, not enough to stop backing the invasion. It has been shared with me that the so-called humanitarian pauses are not allowing ambulances to collect victims and are calling on the government to stop using the offensive language of 'humanitarian pause' when there is no such thing in place. These so-called corridors cover one section of the Gaza Strip, but the streets around them are being described to me as killing fields. Foreign Minister, how many more children and innocent civilians must die before Labor will join France and the rest of the world in calling for a ceasefire? 14:18 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator Steele-John, as the government of Australia we seek to walk a path which reflects Australia's interests and which reflects our principal position and our views. This government, this country, has a longstanding position of recognising and supporting the right of the state of Israel to exist. I appreciate that may not be your view, but that is our view. Senator Steele-John 250156 That is outrageous! The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Steele-John 250156 I have never suggested anything— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator WONG 00AOU Senator, if you want the opportunity to reflect that—I'm reflecting on the motion that you voted against. Senator Steele-John 250156 You know what you say is outrageous. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator WONG 00AOU Well, you voted against the motion. I would also say this. We have also taken the view that international humanitarian law is a set of legal principles that Australia supports, and we make no apologies for articulating the importance of the application of international humanitarian law. And you have heard me say that from day one. You've heard me say that from day one. Frankly, some people have been critical of that, but I think it's a principle that Australia should always cleave to that we call for protection of civilians and the observance of international humanitarian law. In fact, the motion that was passed with the votes of most in this chamber called for that. In relation to humanitarian pauses, I'd refer you to my comments yesterday, which were that they are an important and necessary first step, but I acknowledged they are not enough. And, of course, the international community, regardless of our perspective on the Middle East, would want to see— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Steele-John, first supplementary. 14:20 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Minister, it has been shared with me that mothers such as the mother of three, Suha, have been waiting as long as 36 hours for an ambulance. In this case, that mother's 10-year-old child, murdered by the IDF, is decomposing in her house, where her other three children wait with her. Minister, are you aware that people are dying on the way to these so-called safe corridors and that ambulances are unable to retrieve dead bodies from the houses of family members? (Time expired) 14:21 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I am aware, and we are all aware, that there is a humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. I've said that. Senator WONG 00AOU Well, I'll take the interjection from Senator Shoebridge. I just would remind you: we are not a party to this conflict. Our role— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, this is Senator Steele-John's question. The minister is answering. I ask you to listen in respectful silence. Senator WONG 00AOU We will continue to articulate a principled position. We have done so all the way through. We recognise that what occurred on 7 October was horrific. We recognise that Hamas is an organisation which is dedicated to the destruction of the State of Israel. We recognise that they are still holding hostages. Similarly, we recognise that, in affirming Israel's right to defend itself, we also emphasise the importance of international law. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Steele-John, second supplementary? 14:22 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Minister, on Sunday on Insiders, you said, 'We call on Israel to cease attacking of hospitals.' Now that the government has finally recognised the reality that the State of Israel is in flagrant violation of international law and is not respecting the sanctity of medical facilities, will you finally call out these actions as the war crimes that they are? 14:22 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia As I said yesterday, under international law, hospitals, patients, medical facilities and medical practitioners have certain protections. Senator Steele-John 250156 And the State of Israel is not respecting those. Senator WONG 00AOU Well, you may decide that you want to make those sorts of assertions. That is not the role of the Australian foreign minister, and I don't propose to. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU I would have thought some of the events that we have seen might lead you to a slightly more moderate tone, Senator. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU In Australia. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber! Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Steele-John, you've asked your question. The minister is answering. I will again say— Senator Steele-John 250156 Not really. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Steele-John, you're not in an argument with me or a debate. I'm calling for respectful silence. Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU I articulated the government's position yesterday in an interview, and I expressed the view about the position of medical facilities, patients and hospitals and the importance of international law being observed. I said what I said and I stand by it. (Time expired) International Relations: Australia and Tuvalu 38 14:24 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Last week, the Prime Minister attended the Pacific Islands Forum leaders retreat and announced a new partnership with Tuvalu. Can the minister explain how this new partnership with Tuvalu is in our national interests? 14:24 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank Senator Stewart for her question. It is the case that last week the Prime Minister and Prime Minister Natano of Tuvalu announced a major new bilateral agreement, the Australia-Tuvalu Falepili Union, in response to a request from Tuvalu. The union comprises a bilateral treaty between Tuvalu and Australia, as well as a commitment to elevate our broader partnership. What I would say to the chamber is this represents the most important step any Australian government has taken with a Pacific country since the independence of Papua New Guinea in 1975. Tuvalu's remote location, its scarce natural resources and its small population, spread across low-lying islands, mean it faces major challenges for development and major climate risks. Our governments have been working for months to secure this treaty, which elevates our partnership to one that is our most advanced, our most integrated and our most comprehensive. 'Falepili' is a Tuvaluan word for the traditional values of good neighbourliness, care and mutual respect, and the treaty covers three main areas of cooperation: climate change, security and human mobility with dignity. Under the treaty, Australia commits to providing assistance to Tuvalu in response to a major natural disaster, to health pandemics and to military aggression, at its request. For this security guarantee to function, Australia and Tuvalu must mutually agree on any of Tuvalu's security arrangements, and Australia will establish a dedicated permanent intake, a special mobility pathway, to allow a capped number of Tuvaluans to come to Australia to live, work and study. This will enable what Prime Minister Natano described to me as migration with dignity, human mobility with dignity. In this way, their government is safeguarding the future of their people, their islands and their culture. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, first supplementary? 14:26 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Thank you for that update. Can the minister please explain how the Australia-Tuvalu Falepili Union will contribute to a peaceful, stable and prosperous Pacific region? 14:27 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia This falepili union gives effect to the concept of Pacific led security. Both of our countries are strengthening our commitment to each other in response to the challenges of our time, including climate change and strategic competition. Australia believes in Pacific sovereignty, where the region is guided by the Pacific Islands Forum and the 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent, a region where we come together in the Pacific way and where we are stronger together, where the Pacific family decides its own security and is equipped to respond to its own needs. We know being part of the Pacific family means we have a duty to respond to Pacific needs and to deliver for our shared interests. We are seeking to do so, and this falepili union represents a major step towards deeper regional integration so that the countries of the Pacific can safeguard their sovereignty and determine their own destiny. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, second supplementary? 14:28 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Can the minister explain how Australia is supporting Tuvalu with the threat of climate change under the Australia-Tuvalu Falepili Union? 14:28 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia As I referenced in my earlier answer, it is a decision of the Pacific Islands Forum by leaders that articulates the importance of Pacific family being responsible for its own security. We also believe that that is in Australia's interests. It's in the interests of the Pacific and in the interests of Australia. It's not possible to talk about security in the Pacific without talking about what the forum itself has determined to be Pacific island nations' biggest security challenge, and that of course is climate change. As part of our falepili union, we will provide an additional $16.9 million in funding towards large-scale land reclamation that will expand Funafuti's land by six per cent, enabling people to live in Tuvalu in the face of sea level rise. I noticed over the weekend that Mr Hastie has indicated that the opposition is supportive of this arrangement. Given their opposition to so much else, I'm pleased that they have— (Time expired) Immigration 38 14:29 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Reserve Bank for the June quarter reveals that Australian's spending fell while new-arrival's spending increased, because the number of new arrivals increased. Minister, the government's policy of bringing so many new arrivals to shore up domestic demand is acting against the Reserve Bank's low-inflation strategy. Why do you have your foot on the accelerator while the Reserve Bank has its foot on the brake? 14:30 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Roberts for the question. I disagree with it, and I don't accept that we are not working alongside the Reserve Bank. They have their job to do, which is to bring inflation back within the target band without crunching the economy. We have our job to do, which is to implement our economic plan and roll out, as I said before, the cost-of-living relief to get the budget in much better shape, which we have done, and to make much overdue investments into energy, skills and housing across the country, which are causing pressure in other areas of the economy. In terms of the population growth, or what we've been seeing from the net overseas migration numbers in particular—we've spoken about this in this place on a number of times—we are seeing some of the results of having our borders closed, essentially, for a couple of years. So we're seeing people returning to this country, particularly international students to study, at a time when we're not seeing as many leaving the country. We are seeing that, and that's reflected in the budget numbers. But I can absolutely guarantee, Senator Roberts, that we are working with the Reserve Bank. The decisions that we take are about not making their job harder. It's an already difficult job that they are doing, and our job is to support that in the areas that we have responsibility for, which is to deal with that cost-of-living relief, to get the budget in much better shape, which we have done, and to invest in the productive side of our economy into things like the energy transition, skills and housing, which are areas that were left neglected after a decade— The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister. Senator Roberts, a first supplementary? 14:32 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows that in the June quarter new private house commencements fell 6.6 per cent and new private apartment commencements fell 19.6 per cent. Minister, in line with the Reserve Bank's 13 interest rate rises, housing construction is falling when you need to build more homes for all the Albanese government arrivals. What are you going to do—pump up the economy with more arrivals, causing more inflation and more interest rate rises, or accept that you made a mistake and put the brakes on new arrivals? 14:32 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I would just say that we have not changed the policy settings that were in place around net overseas migration, so your characterisation is incorrect. In response to some of the economic data you cite, yes, we are seeing moderation in a couple of areas, and that is because many Australians are doing it tough right now, and the Reserve Bank is trying to lower demand with some of the decisions that they've been taking. So, yes, we are seeing that translate into other areas of economic data, but I would also say to the senator, who voted against the Housing Australia Future Fund, that our housing policies are about dealing with this long-term underinvestment and failure to acknowledge that the Commonwealth government has a role to support the construction and delivery of social and affordable housing. That is the area the Commonwealth neglected in the previous decade. We have a range of policies targeted to housing to address— The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister. Senator Roberts, a second supplementary? 14:33 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Talking misinformation about your housing bill won't save this government. Everyday Australians know they can't afford their rent or mortgage, and they know your government is swamping the country with even more arrivals. Minister, why are you papering over your economic mismanagement and running an immigration Ponzi scheme? 14:34 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory That question is simply incorrect. I would say that there is a huge amount of work that's being done by the Home Affairs minister and the immigration minister to fix the broken system that we inherited, and we'll have more to say on that shortly as the work that they are doing is finalised. But it's simply not true to allege what you are alleging. We have inherited a migration system that the minister herself has said is broken, so we are dealing with issues to fix that. But, in relation to some of the numbers that we've been seeing, particularly in relation to international students and working holiday-makers who have returned to the country with valid visas after the borders had been closed, just because you say 'misinformation' doesn't mean it is misinformation. These are the facts; let's deal with the facts. We accept that there is pressure in the housing market, which is why we're responding to deal with it. Middle East 40 14:35 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Minister, yesterday in relation to the war in Gaza that was caused by the vicious and deadly terrorist attacks of 7 October by Hamas against Israel, you stated, 'We all want to take the next steps towards a ceasefire.' In contrast, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said, 'A ceasefire now would simply leave Hamas in place, able to regroup and repeat what it did on 7 October.' And British Labor leader Keir Starmer said, 'A ceasefire now will only freeze this conflict and would leave hostages in Gaza and Hamas with the infrastructure and capability to carry out the sort of attack we saw on 7 October.' Minister, how is your statement consistent with the position of Australia's closest allies and partners? 14:36 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I think the senator declined to read what I also said—and I know he pays close attention to what I say. I went on to say this cannot be one-sided, and I pointed out that Hamas is still attacking Israel and is still holding hostages. What I would say to you is that we have affirmed Israel's right to defend itself. We have consistently said that the way it does so matters. We have said that humanitarian pauses are a necessary first step, but we have stated that much more is needed, and that includes the release of hostages unconditionally. That includes making sure that international law is upheld. So what I would say to the senator is: please do look at the totality of that interview, because I did seek to, in what is a very difficult set of circumstances, set out a clear set of principles about how we are approaching this. I have engaged closely with colleagues and counterparts. And you might recall, Senator, I did return from China via Tokyo, where the G7 was meeting, to ensure we continue to engage with our partners and like-minded nations. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, first supplementary? 14:38 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Minister, with reference to your statement that no ceasefire can be one-sided, what are the types of considerations, conditions or concessions the Albanese government believe should be considered in a ceasefire? Would this include the release of all hostages and the unconditional surrender of Hamas leadership, terrorists and terrorist capabilities? 14:38 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I think I went to that in my primary answer. I made the point that Hamas continues to attack Israel and that Hamas continues to hold hostages, mainly from Israel but also from other countries. I've also previously stated, as has Senator Birmingham, that the dismantling of Hamas will be required as part of any enduring peace. We all know that this is a very difficult and distressing conflict, and we would all like to see a just and enduring peace in which both Israelis and Palestinians can live in security behind internationally recognised borders. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, second supplementary? 14:39 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Respected Australian Jewish community leaders Jeremy Leibler and Jillian Segal described your reference to Israel's 'attacking of hospitals' as a libel against Israel. Does the government accept their interpretation of article 19 of the Geneva convention that 'explicitly states that hospitals lose their protection if they are used for military purposes' and their further statement that 'Hamas uses al-Shifa and other hospitals for military purposes'? 14:39 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia First, I know both Mr Leibler and Ms Segal, and I have a great deal of respect for both of them. You would have seen my comments on Insiders, which were that we recognise the challenges that Israel faces because Hamas, as a terrorist organisation, does operate within civilian institutions. The point I also made, though, was that that does not obviate the application of international humanitarian law. I made a different point, which I think is important here. We know what Hamas is. Hamas is a terrorist organisation. Hamas is an organisation that has a stated aim which is the destruction of the State of Israel. Hamas has shown complete contempt for international law. We are a democracy, and so too is Israel. Because of who we are, we seek higher standards and we accept higher standards, and those standards include the application of international humanitarian— (Time expired) Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 40

Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023

14:40 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In question time on Friday you admitted that the sea dumping bill is being prioritised for the benefit of Woodside, INPEX, Santos and the Japanese and South Korean governments, who are co-investors in the Barossa Gas Project. Why is the Albanese government prioritising the interests of Japan and South Korea, who want to expand new fossil fuel production, and not prioritising the interests of our Pacific neighbours, who want coal and gas expansion to end? 14:41 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia It's interesting, isn't it, that the Greens political party ignore the discussion we just had earlier in question time about Tuvalu and the groundbreaking agreement that the Albanese government has engaged in. But you make a point, Senator, about the Pacific. We are actually engaging with the Pacific. I also would make this point. We are a long-term energy security partner with the countries of North Asia, and we are committed to taking ambitions climate action while maintaining that long-term partnership. We do that because it's in our interests and because it's in the interests of Australians. As you know, Australia is putting in place key policy and legislative changes to drive our transition to net zero while also limiting the impact of volatile global energy markets for Australians. The senator may not agree, but the government believes it is in Australia's interests to play a key role in providing reliable and affordable clean energy and critical minerals for our Indo-Pacific partners. It is in our interests for Australia to remain a competitive global energy supplier. We want to become a renewable energy superpower, to meet our own emissions reduction goals and support the stable and secure decarbonisation of economies in our region. Surely the Greens would support that too. As in Australia, our regional trading partners also need time to adjust. Japan has set an emissions reduction target of 46 per cent by 2030 on 2013 levels. Korea has set a target of 40 per cent by 2030 on 2018 levels. Obviously we do want to work with others in the region and we do want to ensure that the partnerships that we have with Japan and Korea continue. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters, first supplementary? 14:43 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland This sea dumping bill and the petroleum resource rent tax changes have been written by and for gas companies. This has now become a very disturbing pattern of behaviour. Minister, which other countries and corporations are writing the government's legislation to facilitate which other projects? 14:44 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia It's always interesting, isn't it: when the Greens political party don't agree with a position, they somehow move immediately to the accusation that we're just puppets. They move immediately to that instead of actually perhaps the possibility that we just don't agree with you. We just don't agree with you. We don't think that posturing in this chamber is going to achieve net zero. Newsflash: we don't believe that posturing in this chamber is going to achieve net zero. We actually do believe, unlike you, that Japan matters to Australia and we matter to Japan, and that is in Australia's interest—our energy interest and our security interest. We believe that Korea matters to us. That is in our energy interest, our economic interest and our security interest. We don't take the same isolationist approach you do. We think we are a part of the region, and we think we have to actually work for the transition. I guess we differ. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters, second supplementary? 14:45 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Can you confirm that this sea dumping bill is a diplomatic offering to appease Japan and South Korea, following the amendments to the safeguard mechanism secured by the Greens that pushed up the cost of the Barossa project because of its very high carbon emissions, in which project those two governments have a direct financial interest? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber, particularly on my right! 14:45 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia No. Pensions and Benefits 41 14:45 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Government Services, Senator Gallagher. The report into the robodebt royal commission described the Liberal national government's robodebt scheme thus: Robodebt was a crude and cruel mechanism, neither fair nor legal, and it made many people feel like criminals. In essence, people were traumatised on the off-chance they might owe money. It was a costly failure of public administration, in both human and economic terms. Can the government update the Senate on the Albanese Labor government's robodebt response? 14:46 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator O'Neill for her question and also for the role that she played in uncovering many of the details of that shameful and illegal scheme that was operated by the former government. Over many years, I sat and watched you at estimates, Senator O'Neill, questioning Services Australia about what was going on. As we now know, with the royal commission we have the full details of that shameful period in public administration, which turned out to be an illegal scheme, operated for a number of years under a number of ministers with the architect, of course, being Mr Scott Morrison, the former Prime Minister. Today the Albanese government has formally responded to all 56 recommendations of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme. We have agreed or agreed in principle to all 56 of the royal commission's recommendations as part of the ongoing work to restore faith, integrity and trust in government. On behalf of the government and the Australian people, I thank Commissioner Holmes and her team for their dedication, professionalism and forensic work on the royal commission. Today's response notes the ways in which our government will work to implement the recommendations of that royal commission. To support that work, we are providing some extra investment and new funding to a number of different parts of government, including for the Ombudsman and in public administration, to support implementation of the commissioner's recommendations. This is in addition to the extra resourcing that was announced, I think last week, for Services Australia to improve frontline service delivery. We're committed to putting people back at the centre of the work of government and to investing in better services for the Australian community. We'll continue to implement the reforms to strengthen the APS and bolster the power of oversight agencies to ensure a failure like robodebt can never ever happen again. It was a budget— The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister. Senator O'Neill, first supplementary? 14:48 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Thank you very much, Minister, for that fulsome response. It was such a huge-scale impact on Australians. Robodebt targeted some of Australia's most economically vulnerable people. How is the Albanese government ensuring robodebt cannot happen again, including by investing in the Australian Public Service? 14:49 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator O'Neill for the question. It was, as Senator O'Neill alludes to in her question, such a big failure of public administration. It has resulted in $1.8 billion worth of refunds, affecting half a million Australians—over 443,000 Australians—who were hounded to pay back money that they didn't owe. We'll never forget, will we, former ministers saying, 'We'll find you, we'll track you down, you'll have to repay it and you may even end up in prison.' That's what happened under this illegal scheme that affected hundreds of thousands of Australians and their families, causing ongoing and significant harm. That is the legacy of the former government, so when they lecture us on the cost of living, we always remember what they did to Australia's neediest people who relied on social services and social security. They hounded them and they threatened them with jail, and we are addressing all of these recommendations. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Neill, second supplementary? 14:50 Senator 140651 New South Wales O'NEILL () (): The Albanese Labor government has recognised the hundreds of thousands of Australians who were affected by the robodebt scheme. But what have the architects of the scheme, the coalition government, done to actually acknowledge their part in this failure of public administration? 14:50 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Well, not enough, that's for sure. Robodebt didn't come out of the blue. The previous Liberal-National government spent years gutting the Australian Public Service and putting public servants into a challenging position by eroding the capability and capacity of the Public Service. And when the scheme's unfairness, probable illegality and cruelty became apparent at the beginning of 2017, the royal commission found that, instead of abandoning it, the path taken by the former government was to double-down, to go on the attack in the media against those who complained and to maintain the falsehood that in fact the system had not changed at all. To this day, people who served as senior cabinet ministers in the former government, including the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Attorney-General, continue to deny this history. We've heard nothing of substance from the Leader of the Opposition on this matter. He should at least acknowledge this shameful part of the coalition's history and give a sincere apology to every single victim. Cost of Living 42 14:51 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. In April 2022 the Treasurer said that Australians were experiencing 'a triple whammy of skyrocketing costs of living, falling real wages and rising interest rates'. That was said April 2022. Isn't it true that since the Treasurer made this statement the cost of living has risen even further, that interest rates are even higher and that real wages have gone backwards faster? 14:52 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory It did finish abruptly. I was waiting for a bit more on that too. Government senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING No. It's no criticism. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator GALLAGHER ING It was no criticism Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister please resume your seat. Order on my left! Senator GALLAGHER ING Such sensitive souls! I didn't mean it as a criticism. It was a surprise, that's all. It was just a surprise, and I'll leave it at that. The shadow minister refers to comments made by the Treasurer in April 2022, when interest rates started going up under the former government because that was the quarter where inflation was at its highest—under the former government. I'm just reminding you, Senator Hume, that the largest quarterly increase in inflation was under your government. The Reserve Bank had to respond then and start lifting interest rates, which is what they have done. We on this side of the chamber accept that many thousands of Australians are doing it tough right now. We accept that, which is why our job has to be completely focused on the measures that we can take to make a meaningful difference in people's lives without adding to the inflation challenge in the economy. We accept that life is harder for people— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, on a point of order? Senator Hume 266499 On relevance, President: I asked about the cost of living rising further, interest rates being higher and real wages going backwards faster. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, the minister is being relevant. Senator GALLAGHER ING The shadow minister also asked me about wages, and I'm surprised because those opposite, who deliberately put wages down, fail to acknowledge all of the steps that we have taken to get wages moving in an inflationary environment—I accept that—where we do see CPI staying higher than we'd like for longer than we'd like, and that's impacting real wages. But we are determined to get real wages moving again, as you have seen from the aged-care decision, as you've seen from our industrial relations reforms— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, first supplementary? 14:54 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Last week, Australians were delivered devastating news of another interest rate rise by the Reserve Bank. Rates are now at the highest they've been since the Labor government was last in power, in 2011. Inflation is growing faster than for 15 members of the G20, and the ABS data shows that domestic inflation is growing faster than trade exposed inflation. Minister, doesn't the data now show that Australia's rate of inflation is more of a Labor problem than a global problem? 14:55 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory No, it doesn't. I don't think the Treasurer or I have made a secret of the fact that the inflation challenge is the biggest challenge that we are focusing on the in the economy. It's staying higher than we would like for longer than we would like. And we are responding to that in the areas where the government has a job to do, which is to, as I said, roll out the cost-of-living relief measures; $23 million have been rolled out over the last two budgets. It's to get the budget in much better shape—which we have done, which you fail to recognise—through our savings measures. And, in fact, that goes back to the last question I just answered. Remember, robodebt was a budget savings measure. Where we find actual savings to return to budget, you hounded people who were living on income support payments to bolster your budget bottom line. That's what you did. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, second supplementary? 14:56 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Last week's analysis of OECD data in the Australian Financial Review shows that Australians have experienced the biggest fall in living standards of any advanced economy and that this has happened in the last 12 months under Labor. Does the minister think that it is acceptable for Australians' real household incomes to have fallen faster than any other advanced economy? 14:56 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory What I don't think is acceptable is that those opposite have opposed every single cost-of-living measure that we have brought to this place to actually deal with some of those pressures that households are feeling. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Order on my right! Senator Hume, a point of order? Senator Hume 266499 On relevance: I asked a very specific question about whether it was acceptable for real household incomes to have fallen faster than in any other advanced economy, and the minister answered a completely different question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minitser Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU The minister was asked for an opinion about what was acceptable. I can understand why Senator Hume doesn't want the house to remind her about what she voted against, but that is relevant to the cost of living. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister. Senator Birmingham? Senator Birmingham H6X On the point of order, previous rulings by past presidents have indicated that, while glancing references to the positions of oppositions or previous governments may be relevant, ministers should not, when they are answering a question, go directly to the position of previous governments or the position of oppositions. This minister did, when she rose to her feet, go instantly not to talking about the government, not to responding to Senator Hume's question but instead to answering about the opposition. The minister should be drawn to the question when she does that. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Birmingham. The minister had just gotten to her feet. I will continue to listen carefully to her answer. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING I think you can see from the decisions that we've taken as a government that we do believe that we needed to take decisions to address some of their cost-of-living pressures. That's my answer to the question. So energy bill relief, cheaper child care, more Medicare bulk billing, cheaper medicines, boosting income support payments, boosting Commonwealth rental assistance, investing in skills through our fee-free TAFE policy, building more affordable homes, expanding parental leave, getting wages moving again—all of these things are in recognition— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Hume, a point of order? Senator Hume 266499 Again, on relevance: the question was about real household incomes. The minister has not even mentioned the phrase 'real household incomes'. Can I please ask you to direct the minister to the question? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, the minister is being relevant to the question. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING The point I make through announcing that list of measures is that, through these decisions, the government acknowledges that we have a job and a responsibility to ease pressures on households where we can, in light of the inflation challenge. That is precisely why our $23 billion cost-of-living package is so comprehensive. I would remind those opposite again that they opposed most of it. Floods 44 14:59 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Emergency Management, Senator Watt. Last year, communities across Australia were devastated by floods, with some towns hit multiple times across a matter of months. In my home state of New South Wales the Central West region experienced unprecedented flooding. In the town of Eugowra, the scale of the flooding was described as an 'inland tsunami'. Minister, what is the Albanese government doing to support towns across the Central West to recover and build back stronger? 15:00 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Last year, communities in the Central West of New South Wales experienced floods on a scale that had never been seen before, and Senator Sheldon is right: it was described by those who experienced it as an 'inland tsunami'. Tomorrow, in fact, will be one year since the devastating flood that took lives and properties in Eugowra and a number of other nearby communities, and I know that we'll all be thinking of residents of Eugowra when tomorrow arrives. I travelled to some of these communities such as Parkes, Forbes, Eugowra and many others, as did Senator Sheldon and many others across politics, including Senator Davey, in the days following the event. It was clear to me, as I'm sure it was to others, that, as we delivered short-term recovery support, more would need to be done for a longer-term strategy to improve flood resilience. That's why I'm pleased that last week the Albanese government agreed to match funding announced by the Minns government in New South Wales to jointly deliver $100 million to the most flood impacted parts of Central West New South Wales. That funding will support repairs and replacements of roads, community halls and other infrastructure, sporting fields, parks and playgrounds as well as legal aid assistance for flood victims. The funding also includes an in-principle commitment towards a $40 million resilient housing program, with details of the program to be agreed following consultation with the local community. The support we announced last week is on top of the half a billion dollars the federal and New South Wales governments have jointly delivered to New South Wales, including areas within the Central West which were impacted by those floods last year. The feedback received so far about last week's funding has been very positive, and people in the Central West are excited to see this support. Cabonne Mayor Kevin Beatty told Triple M Central West that this was fantastic news and gave some people a bit of direction and a little bit of certainty about where they're heading in recovery. We will continue to stand by these communities as they recover. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sheldon, first supplementary? 15:02 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I thank the minister for the update. I'm sure all of us here will pass on our condolences to all those families and community members affected on the year anniversary tomorrow. I note that the recovery is ongoing in nearly every state and territory across the country, including in many regional and remote areas. Can the minister please provide an update on how recovery is progressing in remote communities like Fitzroy Crossing? 15:02 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'm pleased to advise that the Albanese and Cook governments are continuing to support the flood impacted communities in northern Western Australia. This is an area I know people like Senator Sterle, Senator Lines, Senator Dodson, Senator Pratt and Senator Payman have taken a very big interest in since these events occurred. Alongside the state government, we've delivered a range of measures to help recovery efforts, including housing; mental health assistance; support for local farmers, small businesses and Aboriginal corporations; and grants for environment and heritage funding. I can confirm that, as Senator Sterle observed just recently, the Fitzroy Crossing bridge reconstruction is well underway. The new bridge will be six times as strong, 100 metres longer and two lanes wide, and it will include a shared path for pedestrians and cyclists. One hundred and thirty-two local jobs have been created, with around a quarter of total crew hours worked attributed to Aboriginal people, and around $11 million has been committed to Aboriginal owned businesses in the area. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sheldon, second supplementary? 15:03 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales We know that increasing disaster risk is driving up insurance premiums in disaster impacted communities. What is the Albanese government doing to reduce disaster risk and put downward pressure on insurance premiums? 15:04 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Sheldon. As I know you know well, disaster risk is the largest driver of insurance premium rises along with the rising cost of reinsurance internationally. The Albanese government is committed to doing our bit to reduce the cost of living for all Australians, and that's why we're designing policies to put downward pressure on insurance premiums and get real results. Through our Disaster Ready Fund, which, of course, replaced the failed Emergency Response Fund from the opposition, which didn't build a single disaster mitigation project in the years that it existed, in contrast, we're investing up to $200 million each and every year through resilience and mitigation projects across Australia. Within the Disaster Ready Fund we're co-funding $40 million towards the Queensland Household Resilience Program. Previous rounds of this program have seen a more than 13 per cent drop in insurance premiums for Queenslanders who made their homes more resilient. Our $174 million joint commitment to the Bundaberg flood levy—not supported by the local National Party member—estimates reductions in insurance premiums of $1,000 a year. (Time expired) Senator Wong 00AOU President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 45 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Cost of Living 45 15:05 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Treasurer (Senator Gallagher) to a question on notice asked by Senator Hume today relating to the cost of living. We continue to see from this government a selective memory, where they forget the things they said and promised to the Australian people before the last election. They promised the Australian people a reduction of $275 a year in their electricity bills. They didn't promise that once; they promised that 97 times before the last election. Yet they forget about that. They talk about interest bill relief to selected Australians, but they promised every Australian a reduction of $275 a year in their energy bills, and they conveniently forget that when they're answering questions now. They don't want to know about that. They don't want to know about the fact that this is a government of broken promises. They promised Australians higher real wages. They promised that to all Australians on multiple occasions. Yet under this government real wages are going backwards. That's not what the Australian people were promised before the election. The government neglect to note the fact that under the nine years of coalition government real wages actually increased; real wages went up under the coalition government. In the 15 months of the new Labor government they are going backwards. The government promised Australians lower inflation. How's that going? Another broken promise from this government: they promised a lower cost of living. In fact, I remember the phrase from I think the then shadow Treasurer, now Treasurer, 'Everything's going up except your wages.' Well, it's going backwards at a faster rate now than it was prior to the last election. Another broken promise from this government: they promised lower housing costs. They said they were going to reduce the housing costs of Australians. Well, someone on a $750,000 mortgage is now paying $24,000 per year more for their housing. And if you look at a more modest circumstance, like in my home state of Tasmania, where the average mortgage is about $460,000, you're still paying $14,000 to $15,000 more than you were when the government came to office 15 months ago. It is a government of broken promises. And when you look at the overall situation in relation to where we sit in the context of the OECD, with all these promises that we would be better off, we're actually going backwards faster than almost any other developed economy. And the government do what they have been doing for so long: deflect, blame somebody else, try to blame the now opposition. Yet they now own this problem. They have had two budgets. They've got one more budget before the next election. Yet they're still not prepared to take responsibility for their decisions and for their actions. They talk about increasing productivity, yet what are they doing in respect of the labour market? Legislating in support of more disruption of the labour market by the union movement. They put it in tricky language. They put it in the context of trying to get wages moving again. But, as we've already discussed, real wages are going backwards under this government, whereas they went forward under the last government. They try and blame international pressures. Interestingly, before the last election, the Treasurer said Australians couldn't give a stuff about what effect global factors had on the cost-of-living crisis, so what he said before the election is completely the opposite of what he's saying after the election. He wouldn't accept the excuse of global factors prior to the election, but he's happy to run with it now. This government continues to break its promises to the Australian people. It promised higher real wages but is delivering lower real wages. It promised lower electricity prices but is delivering higher electricity prices. It's about time this government took responsibility for its own actions and kept its promises. 15:11 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I'm delighted to respond to the assertions of my fellow Tasmanian senator from the other side, because we as a government have acknowledged and do acknowledge that people are doing it tough. There is a cost-of-living crisis that is affecting the mums and dads around this country. But we have set out to do all that we can to relieve the pressure of inflation. We know, of course, that interest rates are governed by the Reserve Bank of Australia, which is an independent body, as those on that side very well know. We do understand that families are paying more for things that we need in our homes. But we also acknowledge that what's happening internationally—the war in Ukraine and what's happening in the Middle East—is putting pressure on global supplies of oil and other commodities, which is increasing prices. It's one thing to come in and criticise the government. It's something very different when you have the opportunity to support measures that are actually going to give real cost-of-living relief to Australians out there. Those opposite have voted against most of the $23 billion that we've invested over the last two budgets to bring relief to the Australian people. They have not supported the electricity bill relief that we put through this chamber, so now they get up and want to talk about a commitment and about the $275. They are very quick to talk about that, but they are not quick to acknowledge the fact that they voted against electricity bill relief. They also voted against cheaper child care. We have increased rental assistance. We've lowered the price of medicines. And what did they do? They voted against it. We have taken that next step which their government in 2018 had the opportunity to take: to introduce 60-day scripts. They folded to the pharmaceutical lobbyists, because they didn't have what it took to make that change. We have done that, and what does that do? That brings down the cost of medicine even further for those people. It also relieves the pressure on our GPs because you don't have to go to your GP as often to get your script filled. What have they done when it comes to ensuring that we are building more affordable homes and social housing in this country with the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund? What did they do with that legislation when it came into this place and the other chamber? They voted against it. These are real cost-of-living measures that benefit Australian families, and what did they do? They voted against them. They talk about wages, when it was those people, in government, who said they had a policy to keep wages low. That's what they did. That was their policy when they were in government, but now they say: 'Oh, no! Wages have gone down. What about your union mates?' Do you think that people listening to this buy any of that? No, they don't, because they know that it's in your DNA to attack unions. It's in your DNA not to give a damn about Australians doing it tough and needing social and affordable housing. That's what they know. When you wanted to bring in measures to save money, you introduced robodebt. That's what you did. You threatened vulnerable Australians with jail. That's what you did. You drove people to the nth degree with their mental health, with a system that you oversaw that failed. Not only that; you were forewarned that what you were doing was illegal. That's what the Liberal-National government is remembered for, and, if you think the Australian people are going to forget about what you did with robodebt, think again. They know that with an Albanese Labor government they get a government that actually relates to them, cares about what's happening to them and understands the cost-of-living pressures that they're under now, and we're taking $23 billion worth of action. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Thank you, Senator Polley. Senator Rennick. 15:16 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I rise today to speak about the economic catastrophe that's unfolding here in Australia. Just in reply to Senator Polley's comments: if she thinks the Australian people are going to forget the pain that Prime Minister Albanese has inflicted upon the Australian people because of the unnecessary immigration rate of over half a million people a year, she is kidding herself. You are driving hardworking Australians into poverty. You should be ashamed of yourself. The Australian Labor Party is kicking the worker in the guts, and that is not good enough. I'd like to describe it as a clown show. Watching the Prime Minister carry on reminds me of Frank Drebin in The Naked Gun. There's that famous meme where everything's exploding in the background. In this case, there's the Prime Minister going: 'Nothing to see here. We'll give you a little bit of an electricity rebate. But here's the thing: it's coming out of your other pocket through higher taxes. We're going to give you a little bit of a subsidy here. But guess what: it comes out of your other pocket in the form of higher taxes.' Of course, that is the game that Labor play. They play a game of charades. They're constantly moving the cups around on the table, but there's nothing inside them. They have nothing but hot air. What the Labor Party are doing is really more like the Colosseum. Anthony Albanese, like an old Roman emperor, is putting his thumb down, and, as the Christians were thrown to the lions, Australian working families are being thrown on the mercy of international markets, because the Labor Party will not protect its people. 'Protect' is a word I like to use, and I use it on this side of the Senate. I call myself a protectionist. The Liberal Party were the original party of that, before the free traders came in, and I like to remind my own party of that from time to time. We are here to protect the working-class people. Senator RENNICK 283596 I note Senator Birmingham is having a bit of a chuckle, but go and read Robert Menzies' 'Forgotten People' speech. In the last paragraph he says that we should not go back to the old and selfish notions of laissez-faire. There are only two types of outcomes in a market in this world: you're either making money or you're losing money. Our role as representatives of the Australian people is to make sure that Australian people can put bread on the table. They have to make a living. That is why we will stand here today and we will push back against higher energy prices, higher interest rates and higher rents. The Labor Party love to go, 'We're entirely independent from the RBA; there's nothing we can do about it.' I call that out to be complete misinformation. At the end of the day, there is something you can do about it, and that is lower immigration. We had immigration after World War II and we had immigration after World War I. We've always had immigration. But the difference this time is that half the population coming in are going to university and wasting time on getting a degree instead of getting out there and doing things like after World War I, when they built Lake Eildon and Lake Hume, or after World War II, when they built the Snowy Hydro. They are not doing that. We are not building infrastructure. We are not building infrastructure, and that is the problem with the Labor Party of today. They have abandoned the working class, and we can see that because, for the first 18 months of their government, all ever did was talk about the Voice. That wasn't going to make a difference to any Aboriginals out there in the regional communities and it wasn't going to make a difference to hardworking Australians. And, believe you me, hardworking Australians voted unanimously to push back against the ideological virtue-signalling. What they want are real solutions and real outcomes in this country, and the Labor Party do not have any solutions. Last week we saw the Prime Minister jetting off to Tuvalu—a country whose coral reefs are growing. So much for climate change! I should note that last week, as well, the news came out that the Great Barrier Reef in my home state is also growing, to record highs. What Prime Minister Albanese is doing is issuing visas to and bringing in the people of Tuvalu on an unrestricted basis, and just adding to the problem that we have here in Australia. We are not solving the cost-of-living problem. 15:21 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Labor is firmly focused on the cost-of-living issues facing Australians. We were focused on them before our election and we have been every single day since. Even with things like the referendum campaign, conflicts in the Middle East— An opposition senator interjecting— Senator PRATT I0T Was that just a little under the hand—anyway, it's very distracting. We've maintained our focus, as I will seek to maintain my focus now, on the bread-and-butter issues affecting Australians. Cost-of-living pressures are hurting many households. Primarily, there are those who are now experiencing high interest rates, where their housing costs have gone up considerably, and we are doing everything we can to make things easier. As we move towards next year's budget, we will reflect on how to do that again, if not sooner. We have rolled out—or are in the process of doing so—billions of dollars in targeted cost-of-living relief. This relief is designed to ease the pressures on Australians for everyday essentials. For example, people I know go, 'How can I afford to go to the doctor if my mortgage repayments have gone up?' That is why we have introduced bulk-billing incentives which are already seeing rates of bulk-billing lift. We have a clear plan that covers a whole variety of different areas—in fact, 10 key areas—where we will invest $23 billion of support targeted to where it's needed most. Those opposite might have pooh-poohed our electricity rebates, saying that they are meaningless. In fact, our electricity rebates have saved households a substantial amount of money, making their electricity bills much lower than they otherwise would have been. Up to $500 has been provided to around five million households. That has taken the sting out of power bill increases. We have also made child care cheaper for 1.2 million households, saving around $1,700 a year, for example, for a family on an income of $120,000 with one child in child care. Now, one of the key issues here was that people, especially women, were choosing not to participate in the workforce because of the tax efficiency of going to work versus what they had to pay in outgoing childcare fees. That means that this cost-of-living relief, facilitating and enabling women to participate in the workforce, provides a particular benefit, not just by reducing the fees attached to child care but also by lifting a family's household income overall to cope with everyday living expenses, which we know have been on the rise. Recipients on the maximum rate of Commonwealth rent assistance last month received the biggest bump in their payment in 30 years. We've also lifted the rate for those on the working-age payment by $40 a fortnight. That's in addition to the regular indexation and greater support provided to parents. Australians have already saved $180 million on 16 million prescriptions after the maximum co-payment was reduced from $42.50 down to $30. When you're experiencing other household income pressures, the last thing we want is to see Australian households unable to afford medication that their doctors have prescribed them. Countless times, over and over again, under the last government, we would see witnesses before Senate committees say, 'I cannot afford my medication.' Fixing this issue is something that we have prioritised. I could go on and on, but my time has run out. (Time expired) The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I'll just alert the chamber that I will give Senator Brockman the call for three minutes and then put the question, and then, in accordance with the whips' advice, I'll give the call to One Nation for two minutes. 15:26 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Thank you, Deputy President. I'd love the call for longer than that, but I'll take my three minutes. We just have such a disconnect between the words that come out of the mouths of those opposite, the answers to questions in question time and the trite trotting-out of the list of 'achievements', when every Australian family with a mortgage knows their repayments have not gone up by just a few thousand dollars a year; they've gone up by between $15,000 and $25,000 a year. Add on top of that the electricity price rises. Add on top of that the fuel price rises. Add on top of that the grocery price rises. Add on top of that, for a small business with a mortgage or an overdraft to run their business, the interest rate hikes that they have seen under this government. The cost of living has exploded. That is why we and many commentators talk about a cost-of-living crisis. When the Labor Party trots out their rather pathetic excuses for action in this area, action to try and put downward pressure on inflation, every Australian family listening in knows that those are just weak words from a weak Labor government with no clue. They can't even mention the words they used to talk about in opposition. The term '$275' disappeared from their lexicon. Senator Pratt I0T $275! I'll say it! $275 in savings! Senator BROCKMAN 30484 The word 'real' disappeared from their lexicon. They used to talk about 'real wages' but they can't say 'real wages' anymore, can they, Senator Pratt? They cannot say 'real wages', because real wages have plummeted under this Labor government. Real wages have declined at one of the fastest rates in Australian history under this government. Families are worse off, and that is fundamental. In fact, the ABC has done a fact check on something Treasurer Chalmers said a few weeks ago about the fact that workers are better off. Guess what the fact check came up with? I will point out that this is from the ABC; it's not exactly a right-wing media organisation. The fact check said that the Treasurer was misleading the Australian people as to what the Labor government were doing about wages. Well, surprise, surprise! They can't even mention real wages anymore, because real wages are plummeting in the face of the pressure put on families by the interest rate hikes that this government has overseen. Shame! Question agreed to. Immigration 49 15:29 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice I asked today relating to immigration and the economy. Instead of cutting the record flood of overseas arrivals, the Albanese government is letting Australians suffer in a per capita recession and the worst decline in per capita income in all developed nations. According to Reserve Bank and Bureau of Statistics June quarter data, Australian residents' spending fell, with the overall total spending driven positive due only to increased demand from tourists and international students. The government is running Australia's economy like a ponzi scheme, relying on a flood of overseas arrivals to prop up GDP numbers. Meanwhile, for the typical Australian, life continues to get worse. Excluding tourists and short-stay visas, there are 2.3 million visa holders in the country likely to need a home right now. In one year, the Albanese Labor government issued a record 687,000 student visas—687,000! We only have 100,000 dedicated student accommodation beds. Yet Treasurer Jim Chalmers went on national TV and deceitfully told the Australian people the level of net overseas migration is 'not something the government determines'—blatant misinformation. It's no wonder the government have exempted themselves from their proposed misinformation and disinformation bill. The government claim their housing bill will fix everything. What they don't tell Australia is that we are short hundreds of thousands of homes yet their bill will only build a maximum of 6,000 homes a year. Any Australian who can't afford a house or who can't afford rent—if they can find a rental—knows Treasurer Chalmers lied when he said the government doesn't control how many people come into Australia. The Labor government is letting overseas arrivals— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Urquhart had a point of order. I think it was around the use of the word 'lie'. Can we just— Senator ROBERTS 266524 I withdraw that word and substitute 'misinformation'. The Labor government are letting overseas arrivals run out of control and don't even know how many will arrive this year. The government are making a deliberate choice to let Australians suffer so that their big business mates and the banks can profit from a cheap workforce and high property prices. We need to stop this crushing flood of overseas arrivals that are here purely to hide a per capita recession. Our first duty is to take care of people who are here already. Question agreed to. Gaza: Casualties 49 15:32 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to a question without notice asked by Senator Steele-John today relating to Gaza. I rise to take note of the government's response to Greens questions calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. How many Palestinians will be massacred before the Labor government calls for a ceasefire? Do you have no heart, no compassion, no moral compass? Gaza is being annihilated. Gaza is being wiped out. Yet you do absolutely nothing. By any definition of the rules of engagement, medical facilities and hospitals are not to be attacked, but Israel has continued to violate this with complete immunity and cover from governments like ours. Al-Shifa hospital, which is the largest medical facility in Gaza, is under siege. MSF has said that they denounce the death warrant of civilians trapped in al-Shifa hospital signed by the Israeli military. One MSF staff member at the hospital said: There are dead people on the streets. We see people being shot at. We can see injured people. We hear them crying for help, but we cannot do anything. It is too dangerous to go outside. There have already been reports of multiple deaths of patients and premature babies and those sheltering inside the hospital. No-one really knows how many now. Anyone who has seen the heroic efforts of doctors trying to keep their patients alive at al-Shifa and the death and utter devastation brought on by the Israeli forces should have their humanity shaken to the core. Now is the time to channel your humanity and conscience, if you have any, and demand a ceasefire. I will continue reading the names of those who have been murdered in Gaza, a list which is growing faster than I can get through it. I will make you hear their names. They are not collateral damage. These are people. They are lives, dreams and hopes extinguished by a brutal occupying force. As I read each name, think of each precious life that's been torn from their loved ones, each life that you said was a permissible murder in the name of self-defence: Lina Hammam Mustafa Abu Toha, aged six; Abdullah Muhammad Jamal Abdel Nasser Al-Azayza, six; Karim Ziad Muhammad Al-Muqayd, six; Maryam Mujahid Khader Abu Toha, six; Iman Ibrahim Youssef Hussein, six; Lynn Raed Nayef Al-Sharafi, six; Obaida Amer Yahya Al-Balaawi, six; Sowar Muhammad Khader Abu Toha, five; Muhammad Salim Muhammad Abu Qouta, five; Abdul Rahman Muhammad Abdul Jawad Abu Ras, five; Maher Asaad Maher Abu Lashin, five; Anas Jihad Mahmoud Al-Akhras, five; Ataf Hudhayfah Salah Abu Shakyan, five; Juri Abdullah Salah Abu Shakyan, five; Muhammad Ibrahim Radwan Shabat, four; Ahmed Muhammad Alyan Al-Bayouk, four; Abd al-Jawad Muhammad Abd al-Jawad Abu Ras, four; Adam Ali Musa Hussein, four; Sarah Amer Yahya Al-Balaawi, four; Lamar Adi Abdel Jawad Abu Ras, four; Tala Amin Marwan Abu Shakyan, four; Abdul Khaleq Khaled Radwan Shabat, four; Faten Rajab Muhammad Al-Nakib, four; Layan Muhammad Sobhi Abu Lashin, four; Bayan Abdul Khaleq Radwan Shabat, four; Maria Hudhayfah Salah Abu Shakyan, four; Muhammad Rajab Muhammad Al-Naqib, three; Raghad Hani Khaled Abu Al-Naga, three; Youssef Hammam Mustafa Abu Toha, three; Zain Ziyad Ahmed Al-Muqayd, three; Judy Asaad Maher Abu Lashin, three; Ghaith Khaled Radwan Shabat, three; Abdel Nour Amin Marwan Abu Shakyan, two; Ahmed Odeh Muhammad Hussein, two; Muhammad Mahmoud Youssef Hussein, two; Aseel Muhammad Khader Abu Touha, two; Lian Muhammad Abdel Jawad Abu Ras, two; Amir Ahmed Abdel Jawad Abu Ras, two— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Thank you, Senator Faruqi. Question agreed to. NOTICES 50 NOTICES Presentation 50 Withdrawal 52 15:37 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Pursuant to notice given on 10 November, on behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I withdraw, firstly, business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 for five sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the Australian Education Regulations 2023; secondly, business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 for five sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the Higher Education Support (Other Grants) Amendment (National Priorities Pool Program and Regional Partnerships Project Pool Program) Guidelines 2023; and, thirdly, business of the Senator notice of motion No. 4 for five days after today, proposing the disallowance of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2023. BUSINESS 52 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 52 15:38 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That private senators' bills be considered this week as follows: (a) on Wednesday 15 November 2023, Digital Assets (Market Regulation) Bill 2023; and (b) on Thursday 16 November 2023, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Expanding the Water Trigger) Bill 2023. Question agreed. Leave of Absence 52 15:39 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators from 13 to 17 November 2023: (a) Senator Farrell, on account of ministerial business; and (b) Senator White, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 52 15:39 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators, for personal reasons: (a) Senator Liddle, from 13 to 14 November 2023; (b) Senator McKenzie, for 13 November 2023; and (c) Senator Nampijinpa Price, from 13 to 15 November 2023. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 52 15:39 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators, for personal reasons: (a) Senator Whish-Wilson, for 13 November; (b) Senator Cox, from 13 November to 17 November. Question agreed to. NOTICES 52 NOTICES Postponement 52 COMMITTEES 52 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 52 15:40 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I remind senators that the question may be put on any of those proposals at the request of any senator. There being none, we will move on. REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS 53 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS Health Insurance (Extended Medicare Safety Net) Amendment (Indexation) Determination 2023 53 15:41 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That in accordance with subsection 108(2) of the Health Insurance Act 1973, the Senate approves the Health Insurance (Extended Medicare Safety Net) Amendment (Indexation) Determination 2023, made under subsection 10B(1) of the Act on 6 November 2023. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 53 DOCUMENTS Higher Education 53 Order for the Production of Documents 53 15:41 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Education, by no later than 9.30 am on Thursday, 30 November 2023, the 'Selected higher education statistics—2023 staff data'. 15:41 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 The government will not be supporting this motion or the related motion, No. 383. The department recently published the dataset for 2022. The final version of the dataset for 2023 is not available yet due to IT transition issues associated with the new data collection system introduced in 2021. These issues have slowed the provision, collation and quality assurance of the data. The department is working to finalise and publish the 2023 final dataset on the department website as soon as practicable. I am advised that the department is working to make a preliminary version of this data available on the department website before the end of the year. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 53 COMMITTEES Electoral Matters Joint Committee 53 Reference 53 15:42 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: (1) That the following matters relating to the conduct of the 2023 referendum be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for inquiry and report by 24 June 2024: (a) use of the colour known as Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) purple by any entity or person other than the AEC, including in combination with any other text, font or graphical design style; and (b) clarification in legislation of the wording that must appear on a referendum ballot paper to inform voters of the proposed amendment. (2) That paragraph (4) of the resolution of appointment of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters be amended as follows: After "for the purposes of the inquiry into the 2022 election", insert "and the inquiry into certain matters relating to the conduct of the 2023 referendum". (3) That a message be forwarded to the House of Representatives seeking the concurrence of the House in the variation to the resolution of appointment of the committee set out in paragraph (2). 15:43 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 The coalition notes that Australia has had its first referendum in over two decades and that the rarity of this type of electoral event should mean that we consider the lessons learnt for the next time we hold a referendum. However, while sympathetic to the motion, the coalition is not able to support it at this time, noting that JSCEM must report on the inquiry to the 2022 federal election in a timely manner in order to provide the parliament with time to consider any subsequent legislation. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question before the Senate is that the motion moved by Senator Roberts regarding a reference to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:48]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

5 AYES Babet, R. Hanson, P. L. Lambie, J. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. (Teller) 35 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Bragg, A. J. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Rice, J. E. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

DOCUMENTS 54 DOCUMENTS Higher Education 54 Order for the Production of Documents 54 15:50 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Education, by no later than 9.30 am on Monday, 27 November 2023, the 'Actual casual staff' data component of the 'Selected higher education statistics—2022 staff data'. Question agreed to. BILLS 54 BILLS Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 54

Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023

In Committee 54 15:51 The CHAIR 287062 The question that is currently before the committee is that amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 2142, moved by Senator Whish-Wilson, be agreed to. I intend to put the question unless any member wants the call. The question before the committee is that amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 2142, standing in the name of Senator Whish-Wilson, be agreed to.

The committee divided. [15:57]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. 25 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

15:59 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory by leave—I move my amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2151 together: (1) Schedule 1, page 4 (before line 4), before item 1, insert: 1A Subsection 4(1) Insert: new fossil fuel facility has the meaning given by section 4AA. 1B After section 4 Insert: 4AA Meaning of new fossil fuel facility (1) A facility is a new fossil fuel facility for a financial year (the current financial year) if: (a) during the current financial year, the facility conducts an activity, or a series of activities, for the purpose of extracting, processing, supplying or exporting coal, oil or natural gas; and (b) either: (i) as at 1 July 2023, a determination referred to in subsection 22XQ(1) of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 has never been made in relation to the facility under the safeguard rules (within the meaning of that Act); or (ii) on 1 July 2023 the facility is an existing facility and during all, or part, of the current financial year the facility undertakes new operations of a kind specified in subsection (2). (2) For the purposes of subparagraph (1)(b)(ii), the following kinds of new operations are specified: (a) new operations that increase the annual production of the facility; (b) new operations that extend the number of years of production of the facility; (c) new operations that involve the development of new reserves that were not already under production by the facility on 1 July 2023. (2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (lines 1 to 16), omit subsection 19(7B), substitute: (7B) In a financial year, the Minister may only grant a permit for the export of controlled material for dumping, where the controlled material is carbon dioxide streams from carbon dioxide capture processes for sequestration into a sub-seabed geological formation, if: (a) the carbon dioxide streams are not captured from facilities that are new fossil fuel facilities for the financial year; and (b) the Minister is satisfied of the matters referred to in paragraphs 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 of Annex 1 to the Protocol; and (c) the Minister is satisfied that there is an agreement or arrangement in force: (i) between Australia and the other country to which the export relates; and (ii) that includes the matters covered by paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 (as appropriate) in the Annex to Resolution LP.3(4) adopted on 30 October 2009 by the Contracting Parties to the Protocol; and (d) the Minister is satisfied that the grant of the permit would be in accordance with Annex 2 to the Protocol; and (e) the Minister is satisfied of any other matters the Minister considers relevant. We have heard for five days and I don't know how many hours in here— Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Senator Duniam has sat there listening and contributing. We were asking the minister about what this legislation meant for the expansion of the fossil fuel industry. We were assured for five long days that it wasn't in fact related to that. It was about everything else. It was about the London protocol, about ratifying international obligations, about years of drafting, about experimentation that may need to happen and about having a framework for the safety of that. On Friday we learned what the minister could have told us on Monday: that this is in fact for Santos, INPEX, Woodside, Japan and Korea. It's about gas. The sea-dumping bill is about facilitating the expansion of the gas industry, of the fossil fuel industry, at a time when we cannot afford to do so, at a time when we're being warned and urged by climate scientists about this narrow window to act decisively. This is not decisive action. This is delay. We've heard over the last six months in here from communities across the country about the impact that climate change is already having on them at 1.2 degrees of warming. For many it's disastrous. We've seen towns flooded multiple times in a season. We've seen traditional owners from the Beetaloo come to Canberra to make their case, to argue why they matter, why their connection to the place that they live, love and have looked after for thousands of years should matter to the Labor government. They've urged this parliament to take decisive action on climate, to stop the fossil fuel subsidies, to stop the $1.5 billion to Middle Arm, which will help facilitate the expansion of the gas industry, which is related to Santos's call to expand their operations with Barossa, where we've seen Tiwi Islanders raise their concerns. Labor is all about listening to Indigenous communities and the concerns of First Nations people, but when it comes to things like Santos in the Pilliga or Santos in the Tiwis, they don't want to hear about it. When it comes to court, the environment minister is very happy to join fossil fuel companies and argue that she shouldn't have to take into account the emissions of individual coal mines. This kind of politics in 2023 is disastrous. We need better. After a week of listening to the minister explain the bill before us, this amendment would deal with the biggest concern for anyone who cares about our future, anyone who cares about the people and places that we love and, it seems to me in this place, anyone who's not taking donations from Santos, INPEX and Woodside. It would rule out this Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 from being able to facilitate new fossil fuel facilities. I would urge the government to support this. They've indicated that they won't be—even given what we know about climate change, given what we're hearing from our climate scientists, and noting that we have some of the world's leading climate scientists here in Australia. We have scientists like Dr Joelle Gergis, who was one of the lead authors of the recent sixth IPCC report. She's written openly about her struggles in the context of what we're facing—of spending years and years of her life researching, compiling evidence, creating a compelling case for bold action. You'd think that, when she presents that to the world, the parliament would sit up and think: 'This is serious. We've got a window to act.' Yet what do we get? We get this sea dumping bill. What a response to Joelle Gergis and others: the sea dumping bill—'We hear your concerns, but hey, Santos and Inpex and Woodside really need this, and Korea and Japan want it, so we should really get on with delivering this bill for them,' with the support of the coalition and despite Australians voting for more climate action and despite having a crossbench that's urging you to take this more seriously, urging you to do what is, I would argue, the morally right thing in the face of what we know about climate change. And that is to act, to truly get on with the transition, to not approve new fossil fuel projects when climate scientists and many others are telling us that we can't afford to do that. After a week of asking questions—and its questionable as to how many answers we received—I think we got our answer on Friday from Minister Wong. It's very clear what this bill is about. I would remind the Senate that what we're dealing with here is our futures. We make decisions in here, and those decisions should be good for our futures. I read something over the weekend that I thought was maybe relevant to where we are. It is said that the Buddha told this story as a warning. A couple were travelling across the desert with their only child. Their food supply ran low and they grew hungry. But, driven by an insatiable ambition for their destination, they refused to change course. As if in a trance, they decided to kill and eat their child to sustain them. When they arrived at last on the other side, when the destination had lost its allure and the trance had lost its grip, they were utterly hollowed with grief and regret. We have an opportunity to act, and we're heading down the path that climate scientists are warning us not to go down. 16:08 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia The Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 is deeply flawed. The whole premise of this bill is deeply flawed. Far from protecting the environment or acting on climate change, it is an attempt at greenwashing the fossil fuel industry and the expansion of, particularly, the gas industry. Every leading organisation around the globe focused on climate action, the United Nations, the International Energy Agency and many foreign governments acknowledge that we cannot continue to expand fossil fuels if we are to arrest the most dangerous elements of climate change. Antonio Guterres, the UN Secretary-General, has belled the cat and said how dangerous it is for governments to pretend, like the Albanese government is trying to do here today, that unproven technology like carbon capture and storage is a silver bullet and a get-out-of-jail-free card for the fossil fuel industry. It's simply not, and Antonio Guterres says it bluntly. It is dubious science. It is all about the fossil fuel industry with their foot on the throat of government, and they are the ones calling the shots. The only reason a government or a parliament, in our instance, would be facilitating a piece of legislation like this is if either we are blind to the fact that this is what the fossil fuel industry needs to and wants to pretend that it can continue, as business as usual, or we are wilfully willing to facilitate it. It's only one of two options. Either you think the fossil fuel industry has a right to continue to burn and cook the planet, or you've been hoodwinked by the fossil fuel industry. Which one is it? Could the minister please explain to the chamber whether the Albanese government has been hoodwinked by the fossil fuel industry, or are you just doing their bidding for them? 16:12 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I'll offer a response to the contributions from Senator Pocock and Senator Hanson-Young in relation to the amendment that's before us. We don't support the amendments on sheet 2151. Narrowing the application of this legislation would actually prevent Australia from meeting its obligations under the London protocol. The London protocol doesn't distinguish the source of carbon dioxide that might be transported from one jurisdiction to another. It applies to any such transport, and our obligation, if we're to meet the requirements under the treaty, would be to create a framework that would allow environmental impact assessments and a range of other risk assessments in relation to all such movements. Both Senator Pocock and Senator Hanson-Young have reprised the arguments that they've already made over the last six days of debate. I think the clear thing is that the Greens and Senator Pocock have a view about how we should get to net zero by 2050. These arguments, incidentally, were canvassed in the safeguard debate and have been canvassed regularly at estimates as well. The government has a very clear pathway by which we seek to reduce the emissions in the Australian economy. It is the safeguard mechanism— Senator Rice 155410 It's not working very well! Senator McALLISTER 121628 I'll take the interjection from Senator Rice. Senator Rice is correct that the safeguard mechanism hasn't worked very well, because under the previous government it was a mechanism that didn't in fact create an obligation for the covered entities to reduce their emissions. That is what has changed under this government, and this chamber went through an extended debate to put in place binding emissions constraints on large facilities right across the economy. We will expect those facilities, those covered entities, to reduce their emissions. We know that, for some kinds of activities, carbon capture and storage may be a commercially viable solution for them to reduce their emissions. If that's the case, that's an activity that should be properly regulated. It's already subject to regulation, of course, when it takes place in Australian waters, and that's been the case for a very long time. Our government wants to make sure that those regulations are fit for purpose and actually meet the robust requirements that Australians would expect to be in place for activities like this; that's why there is a review going on across the range of legislative arrangements that are in place to manage CCS projects when they're in Australian waters. This is part of that effort. It represents an attempt to meet our obligations under an international treaty but also to establish arrangements that are sufficiently robust to meet the expectations around carbon capture and storage projects when they take place. The decision about whether or not to initiate them will be one for project proponents. And so, for the reasons I've explained, we don't support the amendment on sheet 2151, but I thank senators for their contributions to the debate. 16:16 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Minister. It is very disappointing that the government won't rule out using this for the expansion of the fossil fuel industry. You referred to the safeguard mechanism as binding emissions restraints, and I'd be interested in hearing from you how creating a loophole for the safeguard mechanism fits with binding emissions restraints. 16:16 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I don't accept that characterisation of the bill before us. 16:16 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory This bill creates a loophole within the safeguard mechanism for companies to effectively ship their emissions to our neighbours and somehow claim that they are meeting their scope 1 and 2 obligations. We've now heard from the coalition and the Labor government that gas companies are clamouring to see this passed and are lobbying hard. Minister King has written to Senator McDonald, urging her and the coalition to pass this. And yet I'm meant to believe that this isn't a loophole to the safeguard mechanism. The gas companies are just really keen to see this! Why would they be keen for this if it is not a loophole, a way for them to make good on these binding emissions restraints—plus loophole—and continue to expand? I will move on to an actual question. Potentially this is one for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry as well. What has been the assessed potential economic impact to our fisheries industry in the event of a spill or leak? What consideration has been given of the economic impact to the fisheries industry, and is there a plan being formulated to ensure that this doesn't happen and that the fisheries industry will be compensated in the event of a spill or leak? 16:19 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales We've canvassed the approach to assessing risks in answers to previous questions. Essentially, the London protocol requires a risk assessment to take place. I have explained that in answers to previous questions. 16:19 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Does the London protocol include the risk to fisheries? 16:19 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales An environmental impact assessment, I am advised, includes assessment of the range of impacts on the marine environment, including impacts on other users of that environment. 16:20 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Minister, under the London protocol what are the requirements for permanency? How long does the formation or the technology have to be seen to be fit? Are we talking about a hundred years, a thousand years, 10,000 years, 50,000 years—how long? 16:21 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I'm advised that the decision about timing would be a decision for the Australian permitting authority for projects that took place in Australian waters, as it is now for CCS projects, and that is assessed at the time by the permitting authority. 16:22 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory What is the current time frame for permanency under the permitting that you referred to? 16:22 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I'm advised that this is assessed project by project, Senator Pocock. 16:22 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Minister, when you're allowing companies to take their emissions and pipe them into undersea storage— Senator I0U Otherwise known as dumping. Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 sea dumping, in your government's well-named bill, we're just going on a case-by-case basis on how long we think those molecules will remain under there. Should there not be some time frame that the government thinks is a reasonable amount of time to be sure, and we're not just kicking the can down the road for a future government to have to deal with, leaking CO2? 16:24 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator Pocock, I have already addressed this, but I'm happy to do it again. The government is undertaking a review of the environmental management regime for offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage activities. Those are the arrangements that are in place in Australian waters, and that review seeks to ensure that the regulatory regime for offshore CCS projects manages risk to the marine environment and workplace health and safety. It, amongst other things, will look at the regulatory requirements relating to the long-term liability and monitoring of sequestered carbon dioxide. In relation to projects that took place in the waters of another country under the London protocol, the way that that jurisdiction managed the carbon dioxide in its own territory could be one of the matters considered in the agreement that would need to be struck under the London protocol between Australia and the receiving country. 16:25 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Minister. Sometime last week we were asking about, I think, Timor-Leste not being a signatory to the London protocol. My understanding was that you said it would then essentially be on us to ensure that it was up to standard and that everything was adhered to. I'm interested: once it's under Timor-Leste, how long does Australia have that requirement? Is that indefinitely? If there's a leak in 50 years and Timor-Leste hasn't upheld the London protocol obligations, is that then a liability on the Commonwealth? What happens? 16:26 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I have previously answered this question, Senator Pocock. The emissions accounting for carbon dioxide is the responsibility of the territory in which the project takes place, under the rules established by the UNFCCC. 16:26 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I'm listening to this exchange and I'm very interested. The government just voted against a Greens amendment which would have ensured that the participating country would have to have environmental regulations and rules that were at least up to the same standard as Australia. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U Which isn't saying much, no, but at least then there would be some understanding of the level at which risk was being taken. I'd like to know from the minister: which countries in our region where this toxic pollution will be dumped have better environmental laws than Australia? 16:28 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator Hanson-Young, I am not going to speculate or provide comment on the approach taken by sovereign governments to environmental management. I have previously explained the steps that would be required to establish a permitting arrangement should this legislation pass, and the first of those is treaty ratification. We would need to submit an instrument of ratification and a declaration of provisional application. We would then need to establish a bilateral instrument or agreement with another party, even if that country is not a member of the London protocol, and the receiving country must be supportive of accepting any carbon dioxide for sub-seabed sequestration and have the necessary regulatory and legal frameworks in place to manage the monitoring, compliance and verification of CO2 being stored under the seabed. Only once those steps were in place could proponents apply to the regulator for permits to allow CO2 to be transferred between countries. 16:29 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I'll take that as a nonanswer. I understand that it's a difficult question if you haven't actually considered the responsibility that Australia has in our region as a wealthy nation that has access to resources and scientific data and that has a much larger reach in terms of the ability to monitor these types of issues. I would like to know, if it's a matter of these protocols or regulations needing to be put in place before a proponent can apply to dump their toxic climate-change-inducing pollution in the ocean: what does the Australian government understand is the expected time frame in which any such laws in any of these other countries will be in place? 16:31 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The timing of any agreement-making between Australia and another regional partner is really not entirely in Australia's gift, is it? It's a consequence of negotiations and discussions between parties. But, if your question is whether it can happen quickly, of course such consultations and discussions would take time. 16:32 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia What I'm wondering and would like some clarity on from Senator McAllister is: if we pass this bill through the Senate today, when is the earliest opportunity to dump toxic waste in the ocean? 16:32 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator Hanson-Young, I think I have answered your question. And in responding to the contribution, I will say that we just don't accept the characterisation that you've used in describing what's proposed here. Actually, the arrangements seek to ensure that any kind of carbon capture and storage arrangement that's in place in Australian waters or elsewhere is required to meet the stringent requirements that are set out in the London protocol. 16:33 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Minister, why does your sea dumping bill not refer to or provide clarity on the need for export permit holders to comply with the risk assessment and management framework for CO2 sequestration in sub-seabed geological structures to ensure compatibility with annex 2 to the London protocol? 16:33 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Section 19 of the sea dumping act requires the minister to have regard to all international agreements, including the London protocol. It was on that basis, as I've previously explained, that we didn't give support to the amendment that was moved earlier. 16:34 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Minister, for that. As CCS will result in prolonging our dependence on fossil fuels—it's very hard to argue against that—what analysis has been conducted to estimate the consequential economic impacts on investment in developing alternative energy technologies? 16:34 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator Pocock, I don't accept the premise of your question. This bill that's before us simply sets out the regulatory environment for proponents who seek to establish a project that involves the transborder movement of carbon dioxide. 16:35 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Minister, just to clarify, the Labor government does not accept that carbon capture and storage will be used to extend the period in which fossil fuels are used? 16:35 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales This debate has been very broad ranging, but the bill before us relates to the regulatory arrangements for project proposals that relate to CCS where there is a movement of carbon dioxide across international borders. I understand the desire of senators to have a much more wide ranging conversation about climate change and pathways to net zero. I have engaged in good faith over a long period of time in that broad discussion, but I draw your attention to the bill we are actually contemplating and the amendment before us. 16:36 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia On Friday this government's own minister for resources wrote a letter to the opposition, arguing that this bill pass because of the $30 billion worth of investment that hinges on it. It is very disingenuous to now suggest to Senator Pocock that this bill is doing anything that would further the expansion, and therefore reduce the transition time frames, of other types of technologies, because, if we're not spending $30 billion on CCS and expanding gas, perhaps industry would be spending $30 billion on actually building the technology that is clean and green. It's totally disingenuous to sit here today and tell us that this bill will not further expand fossil fuels. That's the purpose of the bill. The minister for resources said it herself. She has pleaded with the Dutton opposition spokesperson to let it through on that basis. The ability of this government to speak out both sides of its mouth is extraordinary. We're not stupid. The Australian people are not mugs. You say one thing in here and you say another thing to the gas cartel. You say one thing in here and your colleagues down in the other place say another thing. Minister, could you enlighten the Senate as to why the bill is called the sea-dumping bill? 16:39 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The bill before us is the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023. It is a bill for an act to amend the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act, which was passed in 1981. 16:39 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Could the minister enlighten the chamber as to what the words 'sea dumping' refer to? 16:39 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The bill reflects the convention that it originally referred to, which is the convention on the prevention of sea dumping. 16:40 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Look, we have had hours of debate on this and we don't seem to be getting anywhere. I don't feel the government is really answering the questions that we are putting to it on how dangerous this legislation is to our waters in Australia. The question was asked of the minister, and she said: 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. 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. Minister, you refer to carbon dioxide. A carbon dioxide equivalent, abbreviated as CO2-eq, is a metric measure used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse gases on the basis of their global warming potential, GWP, by converting amounts of other gases to the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide with the same global warming potential. Carbon dioxide equivalents are commonly expressed as million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents abbreviated as MMTCDE. The carbon dioxide equivalent for a gas is multiplying the tonnes of the gas by the associated GWP. So, for example, the GWP for methane is 25, and, for nitrous oxide, 298. This means emissions of one million metric tonnes of methane and nitrous oxide respectively is equivalent to emissions of 25 and 298 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide. Minister, if you are going to make regulatory guidelines for dumping in our seabeds, how do you know it is only carbon dioxide? How are you going to guarantee the people of Australia that any other dumping may include other gases and methane, and how are you going to regulate that? 16:43 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The assessment arrangements I have described over the course of the debate, amongst other things, require an assessment of the material that is to be sequestered. 16:43 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland You haven't really answered the question at all. You are not guaranteeing the Australian people. The sea dumping being exposed here—the Barrow Island leaks—you have not given me one place in the world where it works, not one. Two have been raised in this chamber that do actually leak, so there is no guarantee. As you said, you are not interested in commercial arrangements that these countries may have. So what this government has done is put people in this country in fear about climate change and about what is happening. You have actually brought in transmission lines. Everything is happening in this country because of carbon dioxide. But here you bring a bill to this parliament, where you are going to allow commercial enterprises to actually buy carbon credits for whatever reason to make commercial arrangements with other countries to bring their rubbish to our nation, dump it in our seabed, and you can't even guarantee the Australian people what the make-up of that rubbish may be. I note that Senator Pocock has put up an amendment about a bond. He's raised here only carbon dioxide streams, but I'd like to go beyond that, Senator Pocock. I think other dangerous gases should also be included in this, not just carbon dioxide. I think it should go further than that, with methane, nitrous oxide and other gases that may be brought into Australian waters, and there should be a bond. Also, I'd like to see the Labor government have an investigation into this in a couple of years down the track, with a report that must be done on it. Minister, what guarantees are you going to give to the Australian people that you will not allow methane or any other poisonous gases into this if a commercial arrangement has been done? What regulations are you putting into place? 16:46 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator Hanson, from your question I think that you are asking about projects that occur in Australian waters. You're concerned about impacts on Australian waters. I indicated earlier in the debate that the government has initiated a review to ensure that the regulatory regime for offshore CCS projects manages risks to the marine environment and to workforce health and safety. Amongst other things, the review will examine opportunities to provide greater regulatory and administrative certainty and efficiency for carbon capture and storage projects in Commonwealth waters. I raise this because the bill before us deals only with carbon dioxide. That is the scope of the matters considered by the London protocol. But you are raising questions about other environmental impacts associated with offshore activities. I am pointing you to other work that's going on elsewhere in government in relation to ensuring we have a comprehensive and robust regulatory arrangement for offshore sequestration. 16:47 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Honestly, I was completely lost with what you were trying to tell me there—completely lost. The other day, when I said, 'Minister, will this bill allow companies operating in our waters to buy carbon emissions from other countries and pump them into our seabeds?' you said: … 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. So you have virtually said that you're going to allow this. You have said that, if they come to a commercial country to country arrangement, you are going to allow it. I'm saying to you: it's not just about carbon dioxide. We talk about the environment and the concern for our seabeds, marine life and everything there. As I said to you, it's been proven that leaks do occur from this pumping into our seabeds. There is absolutely no guarantee that you can give the Australian people that it has not occurred, that it's a safe project. You have failed to actually answer us about the safety of this in our Australian waters. You have given me no guarantee that it's not going to be anything other than carbon dioxide. So I am asking the minister: if you're going to allow this to happen and you are going to allow commercial arrangements to be done between Australia and other countries, what guarantees are you going to give to the Australian people that it's going to be nothing other than just carbon dioxide? 16:49 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thanks, Senator Hanson, for clarifying your question. Earlier in the debate I stepped through the things the environmental impact assessment needs to include. I don't intend to do that again. I can, however, advise that Australia's approach would put limits on other materials, such as contaminants, that could be present, depending on the source of the carbon dioxide capture. And we are working with CSIRO to ensure that our national action list will ensure that we protect the environment. 16:50 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Would you please show me what part of the bill I go to that ensures that that is the case? 16:50 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales As I indicated to Senator Pocock just now, the bill requires the minister to have regard to all our international agreements when making decisions. That includes the London protocol, and it's the London protocol that steps out the requirements on parties to manage risks to the environment when activities like this are proposed. 16:51 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Minister, and thank you to Senator Hanson for her questioning. It's really fascinating that minor parties and Independents are pushing the major parties on behalf of the people they represent—from very different perspectives, but clearly many Australians have had a gutful when they look at the major parties, when it comes to climate. Minister, I've got a few questions. You talked about this just ratifying the London protocol. I'm interested—to Senator Hanson's questions—is that ratifying it in its current form? If there's any update to the London protocol, will you have to bring back legislation? Or does this have provisions for if the London protocol is updated to include anything else? What then happens to this legislation? 16:52 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The way the legislation functions is that it interacts with the protocol and its associated guidelines or documentation. That's why, as I previously explained, the government considers that there may be unintended consequences if you replicated aspects of the protocol guidelines or guidance as it's currently presented. The legislation as it's currently framed makes a general reference to the requirement to observe the provisions of the protocol. 16:53 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory You're sort of touching on it. The heart of my question, though, is: if it's having regard to the London protocol, are we here in the Senate today giving a rubberstamp to the London protocol, which could be updated and changed? And then this legislation basically says we've just got regard to this updated London protocol in the future?—if that makes sense. 16:54 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thanks for your patience, Senator. This is a sort of technical question about the operation of treaties, so I wanted to ensure that I was providing correct advice. The process we're going through now seeks to implement legislation that would allow us to ratify amendments to the protocol. Any subsequent amendments may well be considered as requiring treaty action in the same way that this amendment process has. However, having ratified these amendments to the treaty, the guidance document and policy documentation that sits underneath it within the London protocol is applicable to Australia. We agreed to participate in it, and that would allow updates to that guidance material to then also be incorporated into Australia's obligations. 16:55 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Minister, you said 'may or will'. I'm interested in whether it's may or will. Also, so that I understand this correctly, if the London protocol is updated and the coalition and Labor vote for this, are you essentially saying we are then obligated or able to implement that updated version of the London protocol? 16:56 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator Pocock thank you for waiting again because I wish to give accurate advice to the chamber. Updates to the protocol and treaty text itself are considered a treaty action and require consideration within Australia's treaty-making framework. Updates to the guidance material attached to the protocol don't, and, if that guidance material was updated, Australia would be obliged to incorporate that into our own practices. That ensures that the parties to the protocol collectively keep up with advances in the way that the protocol is to be implemented. 16:57 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Minister, would you explain to me what 'carbon dioxide stream' means in relation to this bill? 16:58 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator Hanson, I think you understand what carbon dioxide is, and so I will not attempt to provide a chemical explanation of what carbon dioxide is. But a carbon dioxide stream is the circumstance where carbon dioxide is generated and taken to a different geographical point to be sequestered. 16:59 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland The wording 'carbon dioxide stream' is actually part of the bill and so is, as I said earlier, the carbon dioxide equivalent. I raise this issues because carbon dioxide is not going to be captured only as carbon dioxide; there are other additives to its equivalents that could be in it. This is really a dog of a bill. You actually said in your comments the other day: 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. What did you mean by that statement? 17:00 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales A transborder movement of carbon dioxide is movement from one national jurisdiction to another. 17:00 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland So, really, you are going to allow companies, for carbon credits or for whatever reason, to do deals with other countries to buy their rubbish, whatever it is, and bring it out here and pump it into our seabeds when you are not able to give any guarantee to the Australian people that it will not leak. You can't even give a guarantee that it will not be anything other than carbon dioxide. You can't give this parliament or the people of Australia any guarantees whatsoever. Why are you introducing this bill? 17:01 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I have explained to the chamber on many occasions over the last six days why the government is introducing the bill. Senator Hanson made a number of assertions in her most recent contribution which don't really respond to the information I've already provided to the chamber. The bill would invoke a set of requirements for any government to make sure that there is a robust assessment of the environmental impact of any project of this kind, and I really have explained at length the kinds of things that would be considered. I can read them into the Hansard again. The environmental impact assessment would require a long-term management plan, a geological assessment and marine characterisation of the disposal site, an impact and risk assessment, a mitigation and remediation plan, a description of any potential impacts on any matters of national environmental significance, a waste prevention audit, waste management options, chemical and physical properties of the carbon dioxide, an assessment of potential effects, and monitoring and risk management. 17:02 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Minister, the transportation phase has been identified as one of the high-risk phases of CO2 storage projects. The risk is greater for sub-seabed storage than it is for terrestrial storage, due to the need to transport it by ship or by pipeline. Noting the vast distance the CO2 will need to be transported in the Santos project, what are the assessed impacts for each area of biodiversity along transport lines, under the London protocol? 17:03 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales As I've explained previously to Senator Whish-Wilson, any project would require a risk assessment, and that would be dependent on the particular infrastructure proposed, and the environmental assets which it traversed and for which impacts should be considered. I've just read out to Senator Hanson what the environmental impact assessment would require. This would apply to any proposal, including the one you referred to in your question. 17:03 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Minister, for the answer. Are those environmental impact statements or risk assessments proponent led? 17:04 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I have stepped through this in some detail already. Essentially, the proponent would prepare an application providing the information that is specified by the department as being necessary for such an application, and then the application would be assessed by the department. 17:04 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Would such an application be able to be assessed under the current EPBC Act or would proponents need to wait for the updated environmental laws? 17:05 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales At present, Australia is not able to provide a permit that would enable the transport or movement of carbon dioxide. This legislation seeks to create the framework that would allow us to do that and to be in compliance with the London protocol. 17:06 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory My question was about, for example—not that this is on the cards—Santos wanting to use their 600-kilometre pipeline. Would the potential impacts get assessed under the current EPBC Act? 17:06 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Nothing about this bill would obviate the existing requirements for infrastructure to be assessed under the EPBC Act. 17:06 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory What studies has the government relied upon to understand the nature and severity of environmental harm caused by exploration activities for CCS, for identifying these storage areas? How will this harm be mitigated and repaired? 17:07 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales (): Under current regulatory arrangements, a proponent who is planning to dispose of CO2 in Australia by offshore CCS requires multiple approvals, including under the EPBC Act and the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act. This doesn't change that. Projects or activities that require approval under current legislation would continue to require approval and assessment under legislation. I have on many occasions during the course of debate also made reference to the review that is being undertaken at the moment by DISR. 17:08 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Minister, I'm going to go back to carbon dioxide streams, which I've asked you about. I have here, from the London protocol, 'Specific guidelines for the assessment of carbon dioxide for disposal into sub-seabed geological formations'. You've spoken about the London protocol. This is directly from it. In the introduction, at 1.2, it says: The risks associated with carbon dioxide sequestration in sub-seabed geological formations include those associated with leakage into the marine environment of the carbon dioxide and any other substances in or mobilized by the carbon dioxide stream. In general, there are different levels of concern regarding potential leakage that range from the local to the global over both the short- and long-terms. These Specific Guidelines deal with risks posed by carbon dioxide sequestration in sub-seabed geological formations over all timescales and primarily at the local and regional scale and thus focus on the potential effects on the marine environment in the proximity of the receiving formations. Section 1.3 says: For the purpose of these Guidelines, the following categories of substances are distinguished: .1 the CO2 stream, consisting of: .1 CO2; .2 incidental associated substances derived from the source material and the capture and sequestration processes used: .1 source- and process-driven substances; and .2 added substances (i.e. substances added to the CO2 stream to enable or improve the capture and sequestration processes); and .2 substances mobilized as a result of the disposal of the CO2 stream. Minister, if you were so in line with the London protocol, why couldn't you answer this question before? Why did I have to bring it to your attention that there is more to this, because of the substances? Even to capture the carbon dioxide, they have to use substances, and we don't even know what they are. As I said, this is a dog of a bill, and you are not giving the people any guarantees at all. This bill is allowing people to send their rubbish to us and dump it in our seabeds. You can't guarantee anything. Minister, will you clarify the record and do you acknowledge what this document that I have just read out states about what other properties may be included in it? It's not just carbon dioxide; it can contain many other substances. 17:12 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator Hanson, a couple of times now I've talked about the environmental impact assessment. It is required, amongst other things, to assess the chemical and physical properties of the CO2. That's because parties agree that they will need to manage any impacts that might arise if the project were allowed to proceed. That's why that information would be sought as part of the environmental impact assessment. I have set out on a number of occasions throughout this debate the requirements that would be in place for proponents that were seeking to undertake projects in Australian waters. 17:12 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland You can stand there and tell me everything that you want to tell me, but where is it stated in the bill that there are protections in place for the Australian people? What protections are there for any of the other substances? What protections have you put in place in case there is a leakage? What protections have you put in place? Point to it in the bill for me, please. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 298839 Senator Hanson, I would remind you to put your comments through the chair, please. 17:13 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I've already provided this answer. Section 19 of the bill requires consideration of Australia's international obligations. That includes the London protocol, and the London protocol itself sets out the ways that parties agree to consider these risks and seek to deal with them in any permitting arrangements. 17:13 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Minister, I note that the Centre for International Environmental Law has conducted research showing that the 28 CCS facilities currently operating globally have a capacity to capture only 0.1 per cent of fossil fuel emissions, or 37 megatonnes of CO2, annually. Is this evidence that CCS is a false solution for reducing emissions, and, therefore, this bill is merely a distraction from the failure to develop and implement effective and meaningful climate policy? 17:14 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Perhaps I could refer Senator Pocock to the many answers I've provided that indicate that the government appreciates that the path to net zero will require many technologies. Many of the international bodies and Australian research institutions, including the CSIRO, identify CCS as one of the technologies that is likely to be necessary to get us to net zero by 2050. This bill represents just one part of a very-broad-ranging policy agenda across the government to allow us to move towards net zero 2050. 17:15 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Minister. Those organisations that you refer to may say that CCS has a role to play, but they also say that, as part of the transition, we cannot afford new fossil fuel projects, and all week you avoided answering the question about whether or not this would facilitate the expansion of the fossil fuel industry—not capturing existing emissions but whether or not this could be used to expand the fossil fuel industry. You wouldn't answer that until Senator Wong came clean on what this bill is actually about. It's about Santos, INPEX, Woodside, Korea and Japan. It's not about looking after Australians. There's this constant cherrypicking when it comes to CCS. Yes, there are legitimate places and roles for it, but the legitimate place for it is not to allow the expansion of the fossil fuel industry. To come back to the amendment, which we have been debating now for a little bit of time, it is simply to rule that out, to say: 'We're totally on board with the London protocol. This is about ensuring that there is international agreement about what can and can't be done when it comes to sea dumping, but as a country we're going to listen to scientists and we're going to say, "You can use this technology and you can experiment on all of these other things, but this cannot be used to expand the fossil fuel industry."' This is because, as you said, we have the safeguard mechanism, which is binding emissions restraints. It is just so disappointing that the Labor government is now creating loopholes for their safeguard mechanism rather than being serious about ensuring that the biggest 215 facilities are on a downward trajectory, something that this Senate voted for. We've got that in place, and now you're creating a loophole for the fossil fuel industry. It's very curious that it seems like everyone out there understands what this is about. We heard Kirsty Howey, the head of Environment Centre NT, refer to this as the 'Santos amendment', which you took exception to. It can't have been that many hours later that Minister Wong told us Santos want this. This is for Santos, for INPEX and for Woodside. Minister, I'm not sure if you have any data there, but I am interested in whether you could talk us through the world's largest CCS project, at the Gorgon LNG plant, its successes and failures, and how much of the CO2 that they committed to capturing and storing they have delivered on. 17:20 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator Pocock, that project does not involve the transport and movement of carbon dioxide. It's not a project that would be covered by the legislation before us. 17:20 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Minister, can you explain to me where sea dumping will not be allowed in the Australian waters? 17:20 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I can advise the senator that any project requires a permit, so no project may proceed unless a permit is provided. 17:20 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Would anywhere in the vicinity of our coral reefs or Great Barrier Reef or protected marine areas be definitely ruled out? 17:21 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales As I have explained on a number of occasions, the environmental impact assessment must include a geological assessment and marine characterisation of the disposal site and an impact and risk assessment. This is so as to assess what the impacts would be on sites, including sensitive sites. If this project was taking place in Australian waters, the provisions that already apply under the EPBC Act in matters of national environmental significance would also require an EPBC assessment of a project that was in a very sensitive place. 17:21 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Minister, if there are leakages from any of the sea dumping, will there be fines applied to those companies? 17:22 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I'm terribly sorry, Senator Hanson, I did not hear that question. Would you mind repeating it? 17:22 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I said if there happens to be a leakage from the dumping, will the companies responsible for it receive fines or be made to clean up the mess? 17:23 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I can advise Senator Hanson that under the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act the Minister for the Environment and Water has the power to make orders to remedy harm to the marine environment. In addition NOPSEMA has a range of compliance and enforcement powers under the OPGGS Act, including the ability to issue directions to the registered titleholder of a greenhouse gas injection licence. That includes the direction to close off wells and remove property, to carry out operations for the monitoring of the behaviour of the greenhouse gas substance and to undertake such activities for the purpose of eliminating, mitigating and managing or remediating the risk of a greenhouse gas substance injected into a formation if there is a risk it will have significant impact on the surrounding environment. 17:24 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Minister, that's not the question I asked. I asked: will there be fines applied if there is a leakage that happens? 17:24 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator Hanson, I have set out the enforcement powers that are available in the event of a leakage during the injection activity. 17:24 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland If anyone applies for a permit for sea dumping is a bond going to be taken to be held? 17:25 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 requires that a site plan needs to be approved before any activity can occur under a greenhouse gas injection licence. It also sets out a site closing certificate procedure, which involves a monitoring program that's paid for by a mandatory security. Sections 571A and 391 of this same act provide provisions to maintaining insurance and a security for a precertificate notice, and there are other discretionary securities which can be imposed. 17:26 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I understand that Gorgon is not included in this legislation, but the reason I was asking is, as I understand it, the CCS at the Gorgon LNG plant is the largest in the world and has been a failure. Senator Pratt I0T No, it hasn't; it just hasn't sequestered as much as they said it would. It's still the largest in the world. It hasn't leaked. Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Again, we've got Senator Pratt faithfully standing up for the gas companies, allowing them to promise the world and deliver an atlas, and we're very happy with it! It shouldn't be good enough. When companies make commitments, they should be held to them. They had a commitment to inject at least 80 per cent of CO2 underground. They should have captured 3.4 million to four million tonnes per year but have only captured a total of 6.5 million tonnes since 2016. That sounds like serious underachieving—through you, Chair, to Senator Pratt. If we're happy to allow them to continue to promise things and get approvals and then not follow through with them, then keep voting for Labor and the coalition. That's what's going to happen. We can't allow fossil fuel companies to continue to get away with this. We hear stories of fossil fuel companies getting approval. Whitehaven's Maules Creek coalmine got their approval based on an offsets plan. A decade later, it's still not implemented. A decade later they still haven't met their offset requirements. We then hear Whitehaven argue that it's too expensive to recycle their tyres, so they get a variation to bury their tyres on the site. Senator Hanson-Young I0U Dumping their tyres! Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Tire dumping. It's another bill; it's a forthcoming bill. I'm interested in looking at Gorgon because, if the largest CCS project owned by oil and gas giant Chevron, also backed by Shell and ExxonMobil, is still falling so far short of targets and expectations, why does the government have confidence to expand this industry now? You're telling us we are signing to the London protocol, which would enable more CCS. Given the concerns about a project backed by Chevron, Shell and ExxonMobil, what does the government say to Australians who are concerned that you've decided, despite the results from those projects, that it's a good idea to ratify a framework which allows the expansion of CCS? 17:29 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I feel I have essentially answered this question previously. This bill does not require anyone to pursue a CCS project as a feature of their emissions reduction obligations. It simply seeks to create the regulatory framework if an entity sought to use this technology to reduce the emissions from their operations and that their technology solution involved a transborder movement of carbon dioxide. It simply sets out the regulatory tests that would be necessary to permit such a technology solution to be put in place. 17:30 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I understand we have gone through what this bill does. I am struggling to answer people in Canberra who ask me: Where are the projects that are working that the government is pointing to to say this is a good idea to ratify a framework to expand this? What should I be telling people who ask me: Where are the projects that work? Has the government decided this is a technology that we want to be part of, this London protocol, so we can allow Australian CO2 to be piped to neighbouring countries? 17:31 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Developing a business case for a project of this kind is the responsibility of proponents. The government is not here to assert that we have the answers to the questions that would ordinarily be addressed in such a business case. The risks, cost, technology solutions necessary to implement a project of this kind are all a matter for proponents. From an Australian government perspective, we seek to ensure that, if this is a technology solution that people seek to implement, there is a regulatory framework around it. I think a fair assessment of the government's broad climate agenda would recognise that this is one such technology that we are contemplating. The government is providing substantial financial and policy support for other technologies. As a subject of broad discussion often in this chamber and estimates, our budget indicates something in the order of a $40 billion commitment to the transition towards a renewable energy super power. These investments are across a wide range of technology possibilities. I'd suggest that you point constituents who are talking with you about these questions to those broad aspects of government policy. 17:33 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I am wanting to be able to answer people in the ACT. I take your point. You have talked about business cases and proponents. I totally get that. But what we are doing in this place is setting the framework for engagement and that surely should be evidence based. The thing I would really like to be able to tell Canberrans or people in Jervis Bay or even people in Norfolk Island who might have concerns is, 'These are the projects that actually work with carbon capture and storage and that is why the government and the opposition have voted to ratify the London protocol to allow gas companies to potentially—should they have the business case and jump through all the various hoops—to export.' So if you could just talk us through the projects that are currently working. 17:34 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I don't think I can add much to what I've said over the course of the past five or six days. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said that removing carbon from the atmosphere through CCUS is a key part of keeping global warming to between 1.5 and two degrees. The Climate Change Authority has said that strong and urgent emission cuts, together with the growth of carbon sequestration, is critical if the world is to achieve its net zero goals by next century. The CSIRO has said that CCUS is part of a suite of technologies that will contribute to lowering atmospheric emissions from Australia's energy system. And ultimately the decision to deploy those technologies will be a matter for proponents. 17:35 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Minister. What you've just said comes directly back to the amendments in my name that we're currently debating. Again, the UNFCCC and other bodies are saying that there's a role for CCS—absolutely. But they're also saying that we cannot afford to open up new fossil fuel projects, that simply burning all the current projects is enough to blow 1.5 to two degrees. So I find it troubling and a little bit disingenuous to cherrypick that from these bodies, where they are talking about a legitimate use of CCS, but not also saying that while they say that they also say that we can't allow new fossil fuel projects. Again, the major parties will point at the Independents and minor parties and say, 'You may have a different view when it comes to climate.' But this is not my view. I'm not a climate scientist, but I do my best to listen to them. We're doing them a great disservice when we have this type of legislation before us and we're not willing to rule out the use of this legislation and the London protocol to allow the expansion of the fossil fuel industry in Australia. What does it mean for us as a country to be in this place in 2023, given what we're seeing, what we're living through, and the concerns that have been raised? The IPCC's Synthesisreport was a sobering read. I do not understand how we can have that knowledge and pass this sort of legislation without an amendment to ensure that this doesn't do what climate scientists are urging us—begging us—not to do, and that is to expand the fossil fuel industry. That's then on us as a parliament. That's on us. The fact that I'm in here and I'm going to vote against this awful bill means nothing. Being able to say, 'I told you so' in a few decades time—what is the point? We surely have to be better than this as a Senate. We cannot continue down this road, Minister. We have a small window in time to truly transition. And I will continue to call the government out when they talk about the transition and point to $40 billion on transition and other things and at the same time put $1.5 billion towards Middle Arm, at the same time bring forward sea dumping legislation and at the same time taunt the opposition about not voting for legislation that Santos, Inpex and Woodside want. Please, we've got to do better than this. I'd urge the government, the Labor Party, to reconsider your position on political donations from fossil fuel companies. The thing that I hear from people is, despite what may be said about that not having an influence, it's very hard to understand why we're getting this kind of legislation in 2023 if it doesn't have some sort of effect. It's a bad look, and I'd argue that it's not good for our democracy. As we head into drought, into El Nino, we're seeing fires burning in the NT and in Queensland. We've got to do better for those communities. We've got to do better for young people. We've got to be able to say to young people: 'Things are bad. You're not going to be able to enjoy the stabler climate of your parents or your grandparents. You're going to have to live through some pretty horrific climate fuelled disasters. We're sorry, but we're going to do absolutely everything we can do from here on in.' This legislation is not it. I'm sorry. This deserved a week filibuster. Thank you to the opposition for allowing us to ask questions and raise concerns, because, as someone in here representing people in the ACT who care about climate, who love this place, who've seen suburbs burn down, who've seen half of Namadgi burn down, we want better. We want better from our government. There's too much at stake here. I'd urge the Labor Party to rethink their approach on climate. I commend you for the work you're doing on the transition. There is a huge amount of good work that's being done. There are some very good people in your party. But, when it comes to this kind of legislation, at the behest of the fossil fuel industry, it's not good enough. I really fear that future generations will not look kindly on us when they look back and they say, 'In 2023 the Australian parliament passed legislation to expand the fossil fuel industry.' How are we here debating this bill? I'll go back just briefly to something we touched on early last week, and that is our role in the Pacific. We had the Prime Minister visiting the Pacific—and again I want to give the government a lot of credit for the work that they've done in the Pacific. Minister Wong has done a huge amount of travel, meeting with Pacific island leaders. But we had the PM go over there, and I think there were many who were expecting a climate announcement—and there was a climate announcement, but that announcement was: 'We are going to resettle people from the Pacific.' It wasn't: 'We are going to stand with you and sign the Port Vila declaration. We are going to commit to reducing fossil fuel subsidies over time. We are going to commit to a just transition and support for the Pacific. We are going to invest more in adaptation.' We've got to be careful in the way we talk about climate change as the thing that is affecting the Pacific, because in doing so we wash our hands a little bit, as Australians, because the thing that's causing climate change is the burning of fossil fuels. As one of the biggest fossil fuel exporters in the world, we need to start talking more about that. We have an outsized role to play in truly transitioning our economy and moving away from fossil fuels. That will have an outsized effect on the rest of the world. There's a huge opportunity here for us to get on with developing the solutions and then being able to export them, rather than just exporting fossil fuels. I urge the Labor government to do better. Australians want you to do better. They need you to do better. 17:45 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania As we get into our perhaps 16th hour of debate on the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023, I thought it might be a good opportunity for a bit of a recap on where we're at. But I have to commence by paying tribute to this minister and how well she's done over the course of now six or seven days of debate on a bill—hung out to dry by an incompetent government. The government could have avoided all of this, but instead they've sent their minister out to man the port and make sure that everything is in order. Unfortunately, though, it has been one of the most unfortunate displays of incompetence by any government. They have the numbers in this place yet can't move a bill through, because of incompetence colliding with intransigence. We've had a full week of debate on what I think is one of the most innocuous bills we've ever seen before this place. Reflecting on the debate on this amendment, which the opposition won't be supporting, it was interesting to note some of the comments made by the Australian Greens. They acknowledged in their questions the fact that perhaps other countries don't have standards that match our own when it comes to management of the environment, management of carbon emissions and management of things like CCS and CCUS. It was quite the startling revelation, because every time I say that in the context of any debate relating to the environment I get pooh-poohed. But it was great to hear them express concern that perhaps other jurisdictions aren't quite up to the same mark that we are when it comes to regulatory arrangements around the environment, so I welcome that development, and I look forward to making sure that claim is repeated down the track when we debate other issues of a similar nature. It was also great to hear pointed out by the Greens political party the point around there being two narratives that are run here around what the government does. I think that is a fair point to make. I think they do say one thing to one group of people and then say something else to another. This does bring that home. A week-long justification of what they're doing here does rather expose what they're up to. Why are we here again? It's because the Australian Labor Party, in partnership with the Greens political party, teamed up to pass legislation called the safeguard mechanism, which was disastrous for industry. It was built to force heavy emitters into paying a penalty if they couldn't reduce their emissions or access credits. It would have driven business offshore, along with the jobs and the emissions. We established that fact. It was ignored. The bill passed in this stitch-up we talked about on the first day of debate of this bill. They've come back with this legislation, which is necessary to assist some businesses to be able to continue to operate here at world's best standard, not going offshore, as was acknowledged by the Greens, to do business somewhere else, which is worse for the environment. That's why we support this legislation. But, as I said before, we are here because of incompetence colliding with intransigence. A modest request made by a party that could have facilitated the passage of this bill probably within half a day was ignored, because heaven forbid we have an inquiry in a references committee to look at a matter that is of importance to many people across Australia! We've had close to 16 hours of debate on this legislation. Just for context, I will list bills that haven't quite made the 16-hour mark. The National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023, a significant, hallmark piece of legislation and an important part of the Labor Party's policy, had 12 hours and 13 minutes of debate. The Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 had 11 hours and 11 minutes of debate. The Climate Change Bill 2022 had 10 hours and 48 minutes of debate. The Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022 had 10 hours and 45 minutes of debate. The Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023—we hear a lot about that one; it's a massive part of their agenda—had eight hours and 59 minutes of debate. The Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill had seven hours and 38 minutes of debate. The debate on the legislation around the National Anti-Corruption Commission was only five hours. There are only a couple of bills in this parliament that have sustained debate longer than this one. I remind anyone who happens to ever read the Hansard or who is listening to the debate right now that this is a bill that had the support of the overwhelming majority of senators in this place but didn't progress, because of the government's incompetence and intransigence. One of the bills that had a longer debate was the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. It was a pretty significant piece of legislation, warranting a lengthy debate. That had 24 hours and nine minutes of debate. That makes sense to me. The debate on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill went on for 17 hours and 40 minutes. Again, that was an important piece of legislation and a big part of the government's agenda, and very different to the bill we're dealing with here. So, again, it's odd that we are up to roughly 16 hours. We talked earlier about the safeguard mechanism bill, which I believe will be disastrous for the economy. It had 17 hours and 30 minutes of debate. And here we are, on something that the majority of people in this place support and will back in. Anyway, it is what it is. I think it is further demonstration of the incompetence of this government. Their inability to manage to secure the numbers for fast passage of pretty straightforward legislation speaks volumes for where we're at, particularly when it comes to the environment portfolio. I won't go back through the problems the government is having with reforms to the EPBC Act—the fact that they're 18 months behind. I suspect we won't see any reforms relating to those laws pass this parliament this side of an election. The Nature Repair Market Bill is off on the never-never. The committee won't report back to this place until April of this year. Heaven knows how the government will respond. We probably won't deal with the standalone cultural heritage legislation before the next election. All these things are incredibly important, but now, like this, because of incompetence, we won't get anywhere. As I said, the opposition won't support this amendment, and we just hope the bill will pass sometime soon. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 298839 The question is that the amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2151 be agreed to.

The committee divided. [17:56]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Allman-Payne)

11 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. (Teller) Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. 22 NOES Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

17:59 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2150 and amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2152: SHEET 2150 (1) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 16), after item 3, insert: 3A After section 21 Insert: 22 Conditions imposed by this section in respect of permits for the export of certain carbon dioxide streams (1) This section applies for each permit for the export of controlled material for dumping, where the controlled material is carbon dioxide streams from carbon dioxide capture processes for sequestration into a sub-seabed geological formation. (2) A condition imposed in respect of the permit is that the holder of the permit, for an indefinite period after the permit has been granted, must: (a) monitor whether the export, or any act or omission relating to the sequestration, is likely to cause or result in any condition or damage of the kind set out in paragraph 16(1)(a), (b) or (c); and (b) ensure the sequestration is maintained (including after the sequestration site is decommissioned) so that such a condition or such damage does not arise; and (c) repair or remedy any such condition, or mitigate any such damage, as does arise. (3) A condition imposed in respect of the permit is that the holder of the permit must, at all times after the permit has been granted, maintain financial assurance sufficient to give the holder the capacity to meet costs, expenses and liabilities arising in connection with, or as a result of complying (or failing to comply) with: (a) the condition imposed by subsection (2); or (b) any other requirement under this Act or a legislative instrument under this Act, in relation to the export or the sequestration. (4) Without limiting subsection (3), the forms of financial assurance that may be maintained include one or more of the following: (a) insurance; (b) a bond; (c) the deposit of an amount as security with a financial institution; (d) an indemnity or other surety; (e) a letter of credit from a financial institution; (f) a mortgage. (5) This section does not limit the conditions that may be imposed on the permit by the Minister under section 21. However, sections 21, 23 and 25 do not apply to a condition imposed by this section. Note: Failure to comply with a condition imposed by this section, or by the Minister under section 21, is an offence (see section 36). (6) The conditions imposed under this section in respect of the permit continue to apply in relation to the holder of the permit if the permit ceases to be in force. 3B Subsection 36(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) An offence against this section is punishable on conviction as follows: (a) if the condition is imposed by section 22—imprisonment for up to 10 years or a fine up to 319,489 penalty units, or both; (b) otherwise—imprisonment for up to 1 year or a fine up to 250 penalty units, or both. (2) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (after line 28), at the end of the item, add: (4) Section 22 of the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981, as inserted by this Part, applies in relation to permits granted on or after the commencement of this item. _____ SHEET 2152 (1) Clause 2, page 3 (at the end of the table), add: (2) Schedule 1, page 17 (after line 7), at the end of the Schedule, add: Part 3 — Merits review Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 52 Subsection 24(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a decision by the Minister under subsection 19(7) granting, or refusing to grant, a permit. 53 Application provision The amendment of subsection 24(2) of the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 made by this Part applies in relation to decisions made on or after the commencement of this item. These amendments would place some conditions on the carbon dioxide streams and would also ensure that there is merits review for decisions. I think the merits review is incredibly important. Again, it is disappointing to not get support for something like that from the government, particularly when they're unable to point to CCS projects that are delivering and working well, and they're then ratifying this London protocol, which will allow more projects to happen. It's so important that Australian citizens and concerned communities do have an avenue to challenge decisions. I would say it's fundamental to living in a democracy. We've covered a little bit of this ground over the last six days. We could continue, but I'll leave it there. 18:00 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Very briefly, the opposition won't be supporting these amendments. 18:01 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales In relation to sheet 2152, the government doesn't support the amendments. This is the issue around merits review that Senate Pocock just referred to. The government does agree that merits review is an important mechanism for ensuring robust and fair regulatory processes, and the sea-dumping act provides for merits review for most permit decisions. However, the proposed amendments could potentially allow for related decisions under part A of the EPBC Act to be indirectly subject to review when no such merit review currently exists, and that would be inconsistent with the current operation of and policy position on the way that merits review operates within the EPBC Act. As senators know, we've started consultations on those broader issues surrounding the EPBC Act, and we look forward to engaging with senators in this place on that matter. The government also does not support the amendments on sheet 2150, and I have previously indicated the reasons for that. It is essentially because we need to ensure that there is alignment across various regulatory regimes governing these activities, and officials are working through the way that that would be organised and would support organising briefings for interested senators on this process. 18:02 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Minister, you said that there were some parts that don't have merits review. Could you maybe outline to the Senate which parts of the sea-dumping act? 18:02 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Existing section 24(2) of the sea-dumping act provides that merits review is not available for a ministerial decision to grant a permit if the same activity was subject to an inquiry under part 8 of the EPBC Act. The proposed amendment removes that subsection and would have the practical effect of making the EPBC decision subject to a merits review. That's why it's inconsistent with the present broad approach to merits review under that act. The government's reason for not supporting this is the way it interacts with the EPBC Act. But, as I indicated, we look forward to engaging with senators more generally about the way that merits review might be treated in the revisions that are presently under discussion. 18:03 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Minister, given the government has essentially admitted that our EPBC Act is not working, and you've undertaken to update it, rewrite it—we don't know when that will happen. And Graeme Samuel was damning of the EPBC Act. It's not protecting nature. Are you comfortable with those actions under 24(2), which have gone to inquiry not having merits review, given the government has essentially admitted that the EPBC Act doesn't work and we don't know when EPBC 2.0 will be in place to better deal with these issues? 18:05 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The government, as you've indicated, does consider that the EPBC Act requires review. We are working through that, as you are well aware. We consider that questions relating to the operation of our nature laws should be considered in an integrated way, and for that reason our view is that these matters should be considered alongside all of the other questions that need to be dealt with in the review of our environmental laws. The TEMPORARY CHAIR e68 The question is that Senator Pocock's amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2150, by leave together, and Senator Pocock's other amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2152, by leave together, be agreed to.

The committee divided. [18:10]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Sterle)

14 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Faruqi, M. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. (Teller) Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. 20 NOES Ayres, T. Cadell, R. (Teller) Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McGrath, J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

18:16 The TEMPORARY CHAIR e68 The question now is that the bill stand as printed.

The committee divided. [18:16]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Sterle)

21 AYES Ayres, T. Cadell, R. Cash, M. C. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McGrath, J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Watt, M. P. 15 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Babet, R. Faruqi, M. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. (Teller) Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.

Third Reading 73 18:19 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I move: That this bill be now read a third time. 18:19 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia The minister has moved the third question, but she has not put the question. I am seeking an opportunity to speak to the third reading. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Yes, absolutely. 18:19 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia After a week of nonanswers, a week of drivel and a week of excuses, what we now have is the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023, which is going to accelerate and expand the fossil fuel industry by $30 billion worth of investment. Don't take that from me; that's what the resources minister has said herself. This bill is going to supercharge fossil fuel expansion—shamefully—at a time when bushfires are already raging around the country and when people are worried about the climate crisis and how it's impacting on them and their lives right now. We have the Labor Party and the Liberal Party voting together to give another hand up to the fossil fuel industry. It is just ludicrous that we are about to see the passage of a piece of legislation in this chamber today that allows the fossil fuel industry to dump their toxic pollution in the sea, to bury it under the seabed and pretend that somehow it's just going to disappear, 'All good; nothing to see here, folks. Carry on, business as usual,' when the exact opposite is what we should be doing. All of the world's scientists have told us loud and clear. The world's leading institutions, agencies and organisations are telling governments like the Australian government that, if you want to arrest dangerous global warming, you have to stop the expansion. You can't have any more coal, oil or gas. It all has to be left in the ground. This bill is an attempt at greenwashing the next phase of the fossil fuel industry. Sadly, it was brought forward by the environment minister herself—a pretence that this was somehow about protecting the environment, when in fact the minister who is desperately trying to get this legislation through is not the environment minister; it is the resources minister. We know who still calls the shots in the Labor Party; it is the fossil fuel rump that sit on the front bench—the fossil fuel rump of the Labor Party only fostered by the fossil fuel dinosaurs in the coalition. It is just unthinkable. At a time when our planet is on the edge of collapse, when the climate crisis is getting worse, when already across the country dozens of homes have been destroyed because of bushfires and we haven't even hit December, when we are heading into a horror summer, a drier summer, and when we're heading into the next drought, the last thing we should be doing is supercharging the expansion of coal, oil and gas, and yet that's exactly what this bill does. This bill is going to allow for the expansion of Middle Arm, of Beetaloo, of Barossa—the carbon bombs that are going to cook this planet. Antonio Guterres, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, has already said clearly that any more expansion cannot happen if humanity is to grasp, tackle and avoid the very worst of the climate crisis. He has also said that funding this pseudoscience, allowing the excuse of unproven technologies like carbon capture and storage, is simply an effect of the fossil fuel industry having their foot on the throat of government. That is what we've got here today. This is greenwashing at best. It is deception at worst. It is a pathetic attempt by this government to try and push this through under the guise of it being an environmental compromise—that this will help. The only people this is helping is Santos, is Woodside, is INPEX, and we know that because the foreign minister, Senator Penny Wong, herself said it. This bill has nothing to do with reducing pollution. This bill has nothing to do with protecting our environment. It has nothing to do with the interests of the broader Australian community. It is all about protecting the $30 billion on the line from the fossil fuel industry, the very same companies that continue to donate and support both sides in this chamber. This is a collusion tonight from the Labor Party and the Liberal coalition, a collusion to deliver for their fossil fuel mates. That's all this is. It's a disgrace. The Greens have fought hard to stop this bill. We've lined up with our crossbench colleagues. Senator David Pocock has done a fantastic job. And I want to pay respect to our Greens colleague Senator Peter Whish-Wilson, who stood here asking the basic questions of the minister last week and getting no answers, only then to have Senator McAllister thrown under the bus by the foreign minister when she came in and belled the cat. This has got nothing to do with reducing pollution. It's all about delivering for Santos, for Woodside, for INPEX and for those fossil fuel interests in the Korean and Japanese governments. This isn't about Australia, folks. This is about the Labor Party looking after the gas cartel and their fossil fuel mates, and it is a disgrace. I'm sorry we haven't been able to stop it. This is the job we've been sent to do—to stand up and to call this rubbish out. It's called 'sea dumping' for a reason. The sea dumping bill will allow toxic carbon pollution to be dumped under the sea in a pretence that somehow this will make climate change go away. What an absolute sick joke! The bill should be rejected. 18:27 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I won't be long. From the people that I represent I've heard loud and clear that they want climate action, and this isn't it; this isn't climate action. Here in the ACT we only get two senators. There are only two senators in this place pushing for what the people in Canberra and Jarvis Bay and Norfolk Island want. And I've been hearing loud and clear that it's time to act. The time for denial and delay is over, and we need to act. We've been offered a gift by the IPCC and other climate scientists. They've told us how bad it is. They've told us what it could be if we continue down this path, but we've also said that we have a narrow window in which to act. And we should act. We must act. This bill is not that. This is more delay. This is delay from the Labor government. On behalf of the people in the ACT, I want that recorded—that this bill is no good. This is not in line with being able to look at our kids and future generations and say, 'We acted in the best interest of you and your generation.' If we continue down this road, we're going to fail them, and we cannot afford to do that. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T The question is that the bill be read a third time.

The Senate divided. [18:32]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Pratt)

21 AYES Ayres, T. Cadell, R. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Duniam, J. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Watt, M. P. 14 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Babet, R. Faruqi, M. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.

Counter-Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 74

Counter-Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023

Second Reading 74 18:35 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T The question is that the bill be read a second time. A division is required. As the division has been called after 6.30 pm, it will be held tomorrow. Federal Courts Legislation Amendment (Judicial Immunity) Bill 2023 74

Federal Courts Legislation Amendment (Judicial Immunity) Bill 2023

Second Reading 74 18:36 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales The Greens don't oppose the Federal Courts Legislation Amendment (Judicial Immunity) Bill 2023. Indeed, we understand why it's been brought forward. Judicial immunity is essential for judicial officers to act with courage and independence and not be second-guessing whether or not a brave or tough call might find them being challenged by a litigant or a witness who comes before their courts. For those reasons, we won't be opposing the bill. In fact, we see a rationale for the bill being brought to the Senate and passed. However, certain conduct that has underpinned the challenges to certain judicial actions deeply troubles my party, and I know it deeply troubles many keen observers of the legal system. We've seen judicial officers act well outside the bounds of acceptable conduct. We've seen them belittle and mock witnesses and litigants. We've seen them exceed the bounds of any reasonable action of a judicial officer. In one notorious case, it was by putting an individual behind bars in a gross excess of any kind of reasonable powers by a court to vindicate their authority and to properly deal with potential contempt. We've seen appalling behaviour by judicial officers. That is why we're concerned about what is not brought with this bill—a judicial commission. An independent judicial commission can be a place where those matters are sent. It can form an independent view—independent of politics and of the courts system—of poor judicial conduct or allegations of poor judicial conduct. I want to be clear: not every complaint about judicial officers is in any way valid. One of the reasons we support this bill is to allow judicial officers to make rugged, robust and tough decisions free from the risk of litigation, and, if a complaint is made about a judicial officer, that should be dealt with in a fundamental, fair and independent way. At the moment, there is no such place in the federal system. My home state of New South Wales has a longstanding judicial commission, which has been of enormous assistance in dealing with complaints against judicial officers. In nine times out of 10 it has dismissed the complaint of a disgruntled litigant. But on those occasions where it's exposed poor behaviour by judicial officers, it's been an important part of an independent court system, and it's ensured that those complaints are dealt with in an independent rather than political forum. So we say to the Attorney-General and the Albanese government, yes, we will support this bill. But this is all carrot and no stick when it comes to the judiciary. There needs to be a clear timetable for the delivery of an independent federal judicial commission, matched and mirrored on the New South Wales independent judicial commission. We've heard a lot of talk from the Attorney-General and the Albanese government about bringing this forward. We're yet to see it. So we support this bill, and we look forward in the very near future to supporting or amending or improving a bill that also puts in place a judicial commission. 18:39 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I rise to speak on the Federal Courts Legislation Amendment (Judicial Immunity) Bill 2023. This bill goes to a matter of fundamental importance, and that is the independence of the judiciary. This, of course, should be axiomatic in our legal system. Judicial independence itself is guaranteed by a few key pillars. First and foremost, we guarantee independence through security of tenure and remuneration, concepts dating back to at least the Act of Settlement but finding the more modern expression in chapter III of the Constitution. But perhaps more relevant in light of recent events and the reason that we have this bill before us here today is that independence is also guaranteed by judicial immunity from civil suit. As senators would have seen, in August of this year Justice Wigney handed down a decision in the Federal Court of Australia in the matter of Stratford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta. This is the decision in which Judge Vasta, a judge of division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, was found personally liable in respect of a contempt declaration and related order that he had made. Now, I don't wish to express a view one way or another about the merits of the judgement or about the circumstances that led to the judgement being made. That would not be appropriate in this place, particularly when the decision itself is now subject to appeal. But what became apparent very quickly, however, was that the judgement would immediately and profoundly have implications for the immunity of a vast number of judicial officers throughout Australia. It has had systemic impacts. It affects the way judges do business. As a consequence, it flows through directly to the Australian people who come before the courts. The appeals process will take its course, but, of course, appeals are inherently uncertain and may take some time. In the meantime, this judgement is having an impact on our legal system as a whole, and it is right that we address it. The heart of the problem created by the Stratford decision is this: judicial immunity may be lost where it is found that a judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction even if they did so unknowingly or in good faith. It is worth emphasising that last point, which has been expressly acknowledged by the government. Immunity could be lost if a judge exceeded their jurisdiction even if they did so unknowingly or in good faith. As any legal practitioner knows, jurisdiction is a complex, uncertain and contested issue. The immunity of judges in division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court and other, similar courts had never previously been in doubt, but the Stratford decision linked that immunity to the complex, uncertain and contested issue of jurisdiction. This was an issue specific to division 2; it did not affect division 1 of the court or the Federal Court of Australia. For our division 2 judges, it put one of the fundamental principles of our justice system—judicial independence—on an uncertain footing. This is not good for the integrity of our courts or Australians that appear before them. In fact, as the President of the Bar Association, Peter Dunning KC, has stated: Judicial immunity is an important institutional requirement in facilitating the fearless administration of justice by judges across Australia. When occasions arise, such as the present, that in a significant way impact the understanding of its boundaries, it is always appropriate to consider whether the immunity remains appropriately calibrated to securing that fearless independence. Since the Stratford judgement was handed down, I have personally felt a sense of grave disquiet over the prospect of judges being found personally liable by a party to a case because of the way it proceeded through the court. That is not to say that judges must not be held accountable for their conduct if they transgress; that is a given. Rather, it is to acknowledge that judges are human. But, since the Stratford judgement was handed down, my persistent concern has been that putting judges at risk of personal liability is not the right way forward. Australia should be proud of its judges, particularly the judges in division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The judges of division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court are the backbone of our judiciary. They are the frontline judges, the ones who decide the overwhelming majority of cases that directly affect Australian families. They are hardworking, talented and highly skilled and, in every matter I am aware of, they strive to decide the case before the courts on its merits without fear or favour. This is not a behaviour we should seek to change; it is part of the essential character of our justice system that we should seek to preserve. But it is precisely the thing which, in light of the Stratford decision, is potentially at risk and that is the issue that we are now grappling with. Because as we all know, the prospect of liability is one of the best-known motivators for a change in behaviour. Anyone who has faced the prospect of personal liability for conduct in their professional capacity knows that merely the threat of a claim can have a powerful impact. Even the knowledge that an avenue of a challenge is available can be influential. We know that litigation casts a long shadow and it can be launched for many reasons. Quite apart from the financial and professional burden of an adverse finding on liability, the process itself can be a heavy weight to bear, even for those who are highly experienced in the law. We cannot rule out that a judge might subconsciously take the prospect of liability into account in forming a view on the matter before them. I do not say that this is likely nor do I say that parties or their legal representatives would seek to exploit this. But as I said before, judges are human and, as I have been saying for some months now, the Stratford decision should be the catalyst for us to carefully examine the policy settings to see if they are quite right. That is why the coalition has been calling for the bill to be brought forward for the last two months. I personally wrote to the Attorney-General on 15 September, around two weeks after the Stratford decision, to set out my concerns. I said I'm concerned the judgement may have profound applications for the administration of justice in our country, particularly in division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The letter said: Immunity from suit serves a critical role in ensuring that a judicial officer can make decisions based on the merits of the case and the application of law. … … … It allows a judge to perform their role free from external influences such as a fear of personal liability. … … … Members of the judiciary and the legal profession have raised concerns that, following the judgment, there is now significant uncertainty around the limits of judicial immunity, with potential adverse consequences for our legal system. … … … In your capacity as First Law Officer, I ask that you urgently progress options to restore certainty to our judiciary—whether legislative or non-legislative. … … … We would of course work constructively with the government in relation to any legislation you bring forward to ensure judges are able to exercise their judicial functions without fear or favour. Disappointingly, there was no immediate response to that letter. I say 'disappointingly' but also unsurprisingly. And in the depths of that silence the systemic impacts of the Stratford decision started to play out in real time. By late September The Australian newspaper was reporting matters had been put on hold or transferred to other courts because of uncertainties around jurisdictional questions and the impact on division 2 judges. By October, it was reported that the Federal Circuit and Family Court had asked the Attorney-General 's office to intervene. But from that office, again, silence. We continued to press the issue. Just two weeks ago during Senate estimates hearings the court gave very disturbing evidence about the immediate and adverse impacts on litigants with cases before division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. It told the Senate that cases were being delayed or transferred because of the jurisdictional uncertainties now in play. Delay and transfer—hardly good for the administration of justice in our great country. We expect that the vast majority of those cases are family law cases, meaning additional cost and time for Australians going through some of the most painful sadness and difficult times of their lives. I wrote again to the Attorney-General on 26 October to press for urgent action, and I said: 'I remain deeply concerned about the potential implications for judicial immunity and for the administration of justice in our country. Evidence given at Senate estimates earlier this week has made clear that, in light of the Stratford decision on 30 August 2023, the need for action is urgent. It is plain there are very limited options available to manage the risk to affected judges. For example the registrar of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia gave evidence that, where there is uncertainty around the potential for personal liability in division 2 of that court, a matter may now be transferred to either division 1 or to the Federal Court of Australia. However, it is unclear what additional costs and delays this type of transfer could inflict on the parties, nor that it could resolve concerns about indemnity and insurance cover for judges. The registrar was explicit that this type of management action is 'not a long-term measure that we would want to adopt as a fix'. I am aware the Stratford decision is currently subject to appeal. However, as you know, the outcome of any appeal is uncertain and may not be known for a very long time. As first law officer with responsibility for the administration of justice in our country, I urge you to address this issue as an immediate priority. I have not been alone in making these calls. The Australian Bar Association, the Law Council, judicial officers and the legal profession have all been calling for these changes. I am pleased that the Attorney-General of Australia has now finally listened to these calls, albeit, we were going to introduce a private senator's bill on Monday of this week to ensure this action did occur. But we now have this bill before the Senate. I have been making those calls, as I have stated. Others have been making those calls, and finally we now have this bill being brought to this chamber. The bill makes the very simple fix that we have been calling for. It puts division 2 judges on the same footing as their counterparts in division 1, and like every other superior court established under Commonwealth legislation. And it extends those protections to arbitrators, to registrars and to mediators in appropriate circumstances. This is a good, sensible and overdue change. But, in stating that, I commend the bill to the Senate. 18:52 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I have concerns about this bill, the Federal Courts Legislation Amendment (Judicial Immunity) Bill 2023, and on behalf of the Australian people I'm going to make my concerns known. It may sound good, but we had the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court, and that's because the two courts were separated. We had the Federal Circuit Court, which dealt with more important issues like international law and property settlements. Those cases that were not settled in the lower courts were brought to the upper court. The Family Court was basically a lot of judges to deal with family law and migration issues, and they became the Federal Circuit and Family Court. The two courts were merged under the coalition government, which I fully supported as I think it was a good move. My concern and the concern of the Australian people about this legislation is giving these judges immunity on their decisions. That concerns me. How will they be held to account? I was told people can appeal. But usually, after they have gone through the family law courts, they are drained. A lot of people cannot take it anymore. Fed up with the court system, they actually are desperate. They've probably sold their home, so they have nowhere to live, and their finances are at rock bottom. They are at rock bottom themselves, and it seems a decision can be handed down by a judge who cannot then be held to account for the decision. A lot of these parents that are brought before the family law court—and I have dealt with them over the years—are really so distraught because most of the time a lot of these parents don't even get to see their children. They have no time with their children, and that is the decision of the courts. Why aren't the judges held to account? You can say they can appeal, but, like I said, they can't afford to appeal. Who will hold these judges to account? These judges must be held to account, just as I believe that bureaucrats should be held to account and politicians should be held to account on decisions that are made that have an impact on the Australian people. I think that just saying, 'No, let's treat them all the same and give them immunity,' means that people don't have recourse. They say you can appeal; you can write and say, 'The judge didn't read these papers,' or, 'The judge made the wrong decision.' How are they going to prove that? How are you actually going to say to a judge, 'You didn't read it'? It's his word against yours that he read it. That's the decision he's made. How is a person going to hold a judge to account when appealing their sentence? It's not going to happen. We all know that. A lot of these judges are a protected species, the same as bureaucrats and politicians. I think there has to be some accountability for the people of this nation. We see what happens to a lot of these families. The Labor government just passed their Family Law Amendment Bill, which I opposed as well. As I kept saying, where is the accountability there? You talk about the rights of the child, yet you forget to talk about the rights of the parents to see their children. But it's like, 'Oh well; it's just the rights of the child.' No-one could even answer the questions in this place. You just go back to the same old hearsay about the rights of the child. Where are the rights of the Australian people to have that protection? What I'm hearing also is that some parents are fed up with the decisions that deny their rights to see their children for years on end for no real reason whatsoever. They've been blocked, or they can't afford to take it back to court to get some justice. They are absolutely devastated. Where are their rights? You deny them their rights, but you actually want to protect the judges. You want to give them immunity—from what? It's immunity from the people being able to hold them to account. I don't get it; I don't understand. And this is being supported by both sides of parliament. I don't know how the Greens or the crossbench feel about this. But I just don't feel it's right. People should have the opportunity to hold these judges to account. I've heard also, 'Well, the judges will be in fear of handing down their decisions because there's not going to be immunity.' I hear of a class action against some of these judges and the decisions being made. If you actually bring this in, they will not be able to have a class action against these judges and the decisions that they've made, so, for the Australian people, you're shutting down an opportunity to hold them accountable for the decisions that they have made. This affects so many families and so many people out there. I'd like this to go to committee. I would like to be able to ask the minister some questions with regard to this. I won't be supporting this to be shut down. I'd like it to go to committee so that I can ask some further questions of the minister with regard to this bill. 18:58 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The Federal Courts Legislation Amendment (Judicial Immunity) Bill 2023 would make an important amendment to ensure judicial independence and support access to justice in our largest and busiest federal court: the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, division 2. The bill would achieve this by clarifying the scope of judicial immunity for judges of this court. The common-law doctrine of judicial immunity serves a critical purpose, and it is important that its scope and operation are clear. Where there is the potential for uncertainty or inconsistency in its application, it is appropriate for legislation to provide that clarity. It is essential for our justice system that judges are free to decide matters before them in accordance with their assessment of the facts and their understanding of the law without the threat of being sued. This amendment would ensure judicial independence, support each person coming before the court to receive an impartial and fair decision, and minimise the risk of vexatious litigation aimed inappropriately at judges from those who are dissatisfied with the outcomes of their decisions. The bill would not affect a person's right to challenge judicial decisions through the appeal process or the ability for parliament to consider the removal of a judge from office under our Constitution on the ground of proven misbehaviour or incapacity. The prospective nature of the bill would not impact on matters currently before the courts or any causes of action that may have already accrued. The amendments the bill would make are simple. The bill would provide that judges of division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court have the same immunity as judges of division 1 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court. By extending the more settled and broader common law immunity that applies to a judge of a federal superior court to judges of division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court, the bill would achieve the aim of providing clarity but would allow room for the common law doctrine to be refined over time. The bill would also make consequential amendments to four provisions across the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 and the Family Law Act 1975. These consequential changes would ensure that, following the change to division 2 judges' immunity, there is no confusion about what protections apply to certain individuals who are exercising quasi-judicial functions. Judicial immunity ensures that judges are able to make independent decisions free from any external influence outside of the law itself. In this way, judicial immunity is about protecting everyone who comes to a court. It does not mean judges are unaccountable, and this amendment is not about protecting the personal interests of judges. We are all entitled to a fair and public hearing by an impartial court, and clarity about the scope of judicial immunity is an important prerequisite to achieving this. This bill would provide necessary clarity about judicial immunity and, in turn, assure the timely and effective administration of justice. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee 78 19:02 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Minister, under this bill, who would be protected by this immunity? 19:03 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The measure would provide that a judge of division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia has the same immunity as a judge of division 1 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. 19:03 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Would you please explain what immunity is given to the judges of division 1 of the family court. 19:03 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Case law suggests that judicial immunity applies to judges of inferior courts more narrowly than it does to their superior court counterparts. This has created uncertainty for litigants and for judges of the Federal Circuit and Family Court division 2. The bill would minimise the risk of vexatious litigation aimed inappropriately at division 2 judges from those who are dissatisfied with the outcomes of their decisions. This bill would also support the underlying aim of the doctrine of judicial immunity by enabling division 2 judges to discharge their judicial functions impartially, fearlessly and in accordance with their assessment of the facts and their understanding of the law without undue influence or the threat of being sued. 19:04 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland If a person was not happy with a decision of the courts and if you'd allowed immunity to that judge, what course of action would the person have? 19:04 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The appeal process. 19:05 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Through the appeal process, you would talk about the decision that judges have brought down. As I said in my remarks, a lot of these people are at their wit's end, and they don't have any more money to throw at solicitors to actually put their case forward. What other process could there possibly be for them if they feel that they've already spent years waiting for the courts to make the decision? A lot of the parents that I've spoken to have said that they feel that there is a bias against them in the courts because of who they are and because of lies that have been told. My concern is that I've spoken to a lot of parents who go to the courts and give their evidence, and in the court system there is perjury, yet they don't feel that the person who is going against them in their case—their ex-partner, ex-wife or whatever—is being held accountable. Lies are being told—and, I've got to say, by men as well. Lies are told in court. There's no accountability in the court system. There's no accountability for perjury. The judges don't pull them up for perjury. Why are we then giving the judges immunity when the judges themselves will not adhere to the rules of the court, where perjury is not allowed? 19:06 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 and the FCFCOA Act empower the heads of jurisdiction to consider, investigate and handle complaints about Federal Court and FCFCOA judges. 19:07 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland What does that mean? 19:07 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I've answered the question. 19:07 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Could you please translate that into everyday language. 19:08 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Senator Roberts asked a very direct question of the minister with regard to an explanation of the statement that he just made. In light of that, please make the statement in layman's terms so that even I can understand it, if you would please. I would like to understand what you've just said in this chamber. Can you please explain? 19:08 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland As I said, the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 and the FCFCOA Act empower the heads of jurisdiction to consider, investigate and handle complaints about Federal Court and FCFCOA judges. So that's the additional process. Obviously they've got the appeals process that someone could be entitled to pursue legally as well. You're asking about what additional measures there were. That was the additional measure. 19:09 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland If someone feels that they've been wrongly treated in the court system, that someone has perjured them as a witness on the stand or that they've perjured themselves, what course of action do they have if the judge will not take that into consideration? How does that respondent deal with it? If the judge can't be held to account for the decisions that they make, you're basically giving them complete immunity if they make the wrong decisions, such as when they haven't run their court correctly and haven't pulled up anyone for perjury. 19:09 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland It's the same answer as the one before. 19:09 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland How many times have the additional measures been used? 19:09 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I don't know. I'm happy to see if I can take advice on that and come back to you. 19:10 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland My concern is the legal system is a closed system. I can give you an example to labour the point: someone has been trying to get justice for nine years. He's been thwarted by the plaintiff, who is a very large corporation, and thwarted by the lawyers representing him and the major corporation. This is a closed system, a closed club. How can people be reassured that this will not lead to less openness? 19:10 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The courts act independently. 19:11 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland What we have a big problem with in our society is the time judges take handing down their decisions. It can actually be as long as one year, two years or even longer before they hand down their decision. By you giving them immunity—meaning someone can't sue them when for it—where does it leave these people who are so frustrated with these judges that have taken so long to hand down their decisions? What recourse do they have? What can these people do while waiting for these long answers? 19:11 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The standard complaints process would enable them to complain to the chief justice of that court. 19:11 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I won't keep this going. I have my grave concerns about this bill. I think you're giving immunity to judges when they need to be made accountable. I think I've made my comments quite strongly on that. My concern is for the general public—that they don't have recourse anywhere. You're shutting the gate on them. You're not making these judges accountable to the public, and it's a real shame. It's a closed shop, and I hear that constantly. People are distraught. They don't know where to go. They turn to politicians. I tell them all the time that it's a separation of power, that we can't get involved in this and that they have to keep fighting on. Like I said, when I talk to people on the telephone or when I get called aside in a shopping centre or wherever I go, people tell me their stories of how they've been separated from their families, from their children. They're distraught. They're at the bones of their backside; they've got no more left in them. They've got no money. They've lost their houses, and this just goes on and on. Yet you're in this chamber telling me that you're going to give the judges immunity. Where's the immunity for the public? You passed further legislation just last week on the family law courts. You're going to do more damage to the families there. What's going to happen in child support? Who knows what you're going to do with that one when you bring that bill before this parliament! I feel that the people of Australia haven't been listened to. You don't have the answers. Like I said, you're just protecting the judges, who are in fear, who don't want to be sued. How many judges have been sued? One. Therefore we must make sure that it doesn't happen to another judge. Yet hundreds of thousands of people have been affected by the court system and what it's done to the people of Australia. I don't believe this. You're so quick to move to protect the judges from being sued but you don't worry about the Australian people. You don't worry about getting it right in your family bills and law bills that are being passed in this place. It's a real shame, and I'm sure with the next one you pull up, the child support bill, you'll be doing the same—slapping people in the face. Anyway, I've made my point here. I'm sure that the coalition and Labor will cuddle up beside each other on this bill again and pass it with no real oversight or thinking about what the public have to deal with now. One Nation will be opposing this. 19:15 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland We don't see judicial immunity as for the personal benefit of judges; we see it as something that protects everyone who comes to court by ensuring judges can make independent decisions free from external influence. That's why we think this is important. 19:15 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Minister, I acknowledge the fact that there are two sides to this. What Senator Hanson and I keep hearing are essentially two points. There's a hell of a lot of regulation, and that regulation, wherever it's immense, favours the big boys: the big corporations, the wealthy. The legal system is becoming less and less accessible to everyday Australians—along with housing. Is the government doing anything to make it more accessible? 19:15 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland As I said, this is actually about judicial immunity. It protects everyone who comes to court by ensuring judges can make independent decisions free from external influence. We think that benefits everyone who comes before the court in this instance. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 273828 The question is that the bill stand as printed. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendments; report adopted. Third Reading 81 19:17 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Bill read a third time. Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific) Bill 2023 81

Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific) Bill 2023

Second Reading 81 19:17 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory The Pacific engagement visa program will grow our Pacific diaspora. The pilot program will allow workers in the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility program, the PALM, to bring their families to Australia with them. I welcome the expansion of the support these new arrivals will be entitled to, from education loans entitlements to family tax benefits. If we're going to talk about the Pacific family, we need to treat them like family. I'm concerned, though, that the supports in this bill don't quite go far enough. As an Australian who comes from a family who migrated to Australia when I was a teenager, I'm keenly aware that the experience of migration can be hard. It's different for every person and family, but the process of learning about and integrating in a new culture can cause stress on individuals and the family unit. As at every high-stress time in life, things can happen: families can struggle or argue, jobs can turn out to be not what was expected and setting up for the future can be more expensive than was thought. In these situations, having a strong safety net to fall back onto is critical. We haven't always done the right thing by our Pacific family, and we still aren't when it comes to our impact on the climate. Today we saw this place pass the sea dumping bill. People from the Pacific have lived and worked in Australia for centuries. At times the history of this relationship has been exploitative, and we are continuing to harm their homes today. Our government continues to expand the fossil fuel industry and is failing to show ambition on climate action. The reefs that the Pacific relies on are being bleached. The land they farm is being ruined by salt. Rising sea levels and extremes of weather are destroying their homes, and we are letting this happen. In fact, we are facilitating the expansion of the fossil fuel industry through the sea dumping bill. We've done so much damage to the Pacific over the years, and the very least we can do is provide every support we can to make sure that those who choose to migrate here can flourish as new Australians. We want them to become part of our communities. We want them to build their future here and support their families at home. We must give them the very best chance at their new lives. Part of the purpose of this bill is to support people from the Pacific to set themselves up in Australia, to be economically successful and have the ability to send remittances home. There is hard evidence to show that this works. Over the last 30 years, remittances to those countries where out migration has been strong have boomed—for example, Fiji, Samoa and Tonga. We know that migrants from the Pacific retain strong links with their home, and they send money home. These transfers support Pacific communities and they support the resilience of Pacific nations to withstand disasters and economic shocks. Remittances are like a form of insurance for small economies. A great example of this was seen during the coronavirus pandemic, when COVID was ripping through the Pacific and all tourism dollars dried up. We saw that remittances increased. People were worried about their families and their communities, so they sent money, and it helped their communities at home to manage. To make this program work as best it can, new migrants need as much support to settle successfully as we can muster, and they need the support as soon as they arrive. This is especially important for women. The Pacific Engagement Visa requires that the primary visa holder has a job on arrival. This is a great head start, but we must remember that in many of these families there will be mums at home with young children. With the cost of living going crazy, trying to live on one wage is hard enough. Trying to do it knowing you've got no safety net to fall back on is something else altogether. In the early settlement period, new migrants are at a higher risk of family and domestic violence. One of the most common types of violence in this situation is coercive control, with financial control the biggest for women who are trying to gain some independence, or in some cases for women who are trying to leave. Providing assets to independent financial support for women is a huge protective factor for domestic and family violence. For these key reasons, I've asked the government to consider expanding access to social security nets for newly arrived Pacific Engagement Visa holders. I've asked the government to do two things, and they have agreed. I'll move a second reading amendment to reflect the commitments they've given. I've asked them to put a monitoring and evaluation plan in place to evaluate the Pacific Engagement Visa program, to maximise successful settlement opportunities for newly arrived visa holders and their families, and to consider whether there is a need for further access to social services payments, including the parenting payment. I've also asked that they implement a consultation mechanism that includes DFAT, community leaders from the Pacific diaspora, settlement agencies, domestic and family violence services, and social welfare support services, and that this conversation group feeds into the overall evaluation. I have asked that this evaluation commence not more than 12 months after the arrival of the first Pacific Engagement Visa holders and for the findings to be considered in the subsequent budget process. Migration to a new country is exciting but it is hard, and it is different for every individual and every family. People from Pacific islands will have much to contribute in this country. They will bring different perspectives, different skill sets, and I am sure will contribute in whatever community they find themselves moving to. We need to ensure that we set them up for success, that we support them and that they are able to contribute and be part of these communities while also supporting family back in their Pacific island countries. 19:24 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I rise to oppose the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Australia’s Engagement in the Pacific) Bill 2023 in the strongest possible terms. I want Australian farmers to know I understand the importance of Pacific island workers to their businesses. Their labour is crucial. Their labour is critical for Australian horticulture and agriculture, on the farms and in thee packing sheds, because many Australians unfortunately will not do this work. I think farmers once preferred to hire Australians but their experience these days is that Pacific islanders are more reliable and productive. I am sorry to say that is an indictment on the attitudes of many Australians living on long-term welfare. They sit on the couch at taxpayers' expense while the Australian economy screams for more workers because the government accommodates them. The Pacific Australia Labour Mobility Scheme is a good deal for the workers too. They earn high Australian wages and, when they are finished, they take their money home to support their families and local economies. This system is working reasonably well as it is, and I see no compelling reason to change it. However, this Labor government is addicted to record immigration despite all the problems it is causing, and this bill paves the way for yet more people to flood across our shores. We may need their labour but we don't need Pacific islanders to bring their families with them for what is supposed to be a temporary stay to do seasonal work in Australia. We certainly don't need to allow these families to access a range of benefits including family tax benefits A and B, HELP, student loans, Youth Allowance, Austudy and childcare subsidies. Minister Conroy's office has said the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific) Bill 2023 will provide benefits to migrants under the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility, PALM, scheme's family accompaniment pilot and to permanent migrants under the Pacific engagement visa. The PALM scheme allows Pacific and Timorese workers to come to Australia for up to four years in sectors facing labour shortages like agriculture. This means workers are away from their families for extended periods. To address this, the government is introducing a new PALM policy. This will allow PALM scheme workers on placements of one to four years to bring their spouse and children to Australia. It will commence with a pilot for 200 families. The bill will amend the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 to enable eligible PALM workers taking part in the family accompaniment pilot to access family tax benefits part A and B, and the childcare subsidy. This will help these workers with the cost of raising their families and enable their spouses to participate in the workforce. The Pacific engagement visa, PEV, will allow up to 3,000 Pacific and Timorese nationals to come to Australia as permanent residents each year. Visas will be granted in a two-stage process. In the first stage, applicants register in a ballot. In the second stage, applicants selected on the ballot apply for the visa. To be granted a visa applicants will need to meet eligibility criteria, including having a formal job offer with an employer in Australia; be aged between 18 and 45; meet basic English language requirements—who knows what that will be, if they know the ABC; and meet immigration, health and character requirements. As we've seen in the past with the people that come into this country, I don't have a lot of faith in that one either. The office goes on to say: 'The bill will support the Pacific engagement visa by amending A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 to provide an exemption to the newly arrived resident's waiting period for family tax benefit part A for PEV holders and by amending the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to extend the Higher Education Loan Program, HELP, to PEV holders—the fact is that between HELP and HECS debt, we are owed around $60 billion, but let's just increase it even more; amending the Social Security Act 1991 to provide an exemption to the newly arrived resident's waiting period for PEV holders for youth allowance, student, youth allowance apprentice and Austudy; amending the VET Student Loans Act of 2016 to extend eligibility for VET student loans to PEV holders.' It goes on: 'These benefits are being provided because PEV holders are expected to be a lower-skilled cohort than most other permanent migrants. Providing social and education benefits will support successful settlement experiences. Supporting PEV holders to engage in education and training will build capability and increase productivity, benefiting Australian employers and the broader economy over the working life of each PEV holder. This will also deliver economic and skills dividends for the region through increased remittances, investments and education and skills exchange.' A lot of Australians out there can't get assistance for HELP, but we're going to open it up to people who have not given anything to this country and give them all these helping hands and provide for them, and these are lower-skilled people. This is insane. Benefits are being provided because these visa holders are expected to be lower skilled. Why is Labor supporting lower-skilled overseas workers that are almost certainly going to need considerable taxpayer support for themselves and their families? Listen to this from the bill's explanatory memorandum: A key measure of success will be growth of a flourishing Pacific diaspora in Australia … They want a separate colony of these people, who are not to be part of the Australian community. Where is this diaspora going to live, when we don't have enough homes for the people who're already here? Labor's housing policy will not make an appreciable dent in the estimated shortfall of 650,000 homes we have in this country. Labor's housing policy is a joke, providing 30,000 homes over the next five years, especially when it is Labor's very own immigration policies that are the primary cause of the housing and rental crisis that's driving more Australian families into homelessness and mortgage stress. We have plenty of enclaves in the Australian community already, and we have seen the effects of this in demonstrations of support for Islamic terrorism atrocities in Israel. As increasing numbers of political leaders are now saying, this proves multiculturalism has been a failure. John Howard is saying it, John Anderson is saying it, the United Kingdom's Home Secretary is staying it, Angela Merkel has said it, Nicolas Sarkozy has said it. The late Bill Hayden said it to me in 1996, and I have been saying it for more than 25 years. We don't have a multicultural society; we have a multiracial society, and, as demonstrations supporting terrorism have shown, some of these people just don't belong in Australia. What Labor is saying in the explanatory memorandum is that this bill is aimed at increasing our population through yet more immigration. They simply don't care about Australian families going through homeless, they don't care that their record immigration suppresses wage growth and drives inflation and that the Reserve Bank has just raised interest rates again, for the 13th time in 19 months. They don't care that it puts more pressure on our infrastructure and public health systems, and they don't care that the majority of Australians don't support high immigration. With this bill, which will enable thousands of foreign families to access a wide range of benefits, Labor show they don't care about increasing the social welfare cost to taxpayers, which already exceeds $250 billion per year. There are almost 900,000 Australians receiving unemployment benefits today, many of whom are perfectly capable of working while our economy screams for workers across almost every sector. Labor's priority should be getting these Australians into work, and they're not going to do that by lifting unemployment benefits. We need much stronger incentives to force the long-term unemployed capable of working into the many jobs that are waiting for them. One Nation's policy would make it happen. We advocate making unemployment benefits available to Australians for only two years out of every five. Remember: it's meant as a helping hand, not a way of life or a vote-winner for the major parties, which keep paying the long-term unemployed able to work. Our policy would rapidly reduce the numbers of people living off the taxpayer, substantially reduce our quarter-trillion-dollar annual welfare bill and put an end to unemployment as a lifestyle choice for people capable of working. There are other aspects of this legislation which are a problem. We will be draining our Pacific neighbours of their population and their workers. These are workers who return season after season to spend their Australian wages in the local economy and support their families. The Cook Islands have already signalled their concerns, and I expect others will follow. Labor says this legislation is part of its engagement strategy with our Pacific neighbours, supposedly in response to the growing influence of communist China in the region. The irony is that Pacific nations routinely smack Australia over its one per cent contribution to human carbon dioxide emissions but say nothing about China's 30 per cent of global emissions because they've gone to China for dodgy loans to prop up their fragile economies and built infrastructure. When this debt is called, they will no doubt come to us, screaming for help. I'll be saying: 'No, you made your bed. You lie in it.' Yes, we are desperate for workers in Australia. Whether it's in the horticulture or farming sector, whether it's as boners in the abattoirs, I hear it through many places that I've travelled. It doesn't matter what businesses they are; they're screaming out for workers. As I said, we've got 900,000 unemployed on unemployment benefits. Some of them have been on it for 20, 30 or 40 years. You can't get the real figures for it, but there are large numbers. Neither side, whether it be the coalition or Labor governments, is prepared to do anything about it to rein that in. Our welfare bill is $250 billion a year. Six years ago, it was $180 billion; now we're up to $250 billion. But no; bring more people into the country, with high immigration of over half a million people a year. You've got over 687,000 students in the country as well. That's why there's a housing shortage. But no; let's bring in the Pacific islanders because we can't get workers. Let's open up the floodgates and give them tax benefits, child care, student loans—all these things that you're talking about are a cost to the taxpayer. Where's the money coming from? Who's going to pay for this? It will be future generations. You want to bring people in to prop up your vote as well, I've got no doubt, and to prop up the economy. Until you realise what you are doing here—and I know there's no care from either side, because you're of the opinion that it's alright to bring more and more people into the country. Future generations will be paying for this. What is happening to our country is a real shame. I've got nothing against these people. They talk about their islands sinking and all the other rubbish and say that we're to blame for it. We're not to blame for it. There's more to this climate change than just human emissions, and to blame it on human emissions is absolutely ridiculous. Only three per cent of human emissions come from carbon dioxide, so what do you say about the other 97 per cent that's through human resources? You put out that we need to bring these people into the country. You're going to deplete these islands of their own people: the youth, the people that they require for their own economies, for their own wellbeing. You're just going to bring them here. We have a system where these people come over here for work, they work and they keep the money. It's their families that actually say, 'I want to go back home to the Cook Islands'—or wherever they're from—'because my family is there.' But it's not only that; it's extended families as well. You're going to deny them the ability to go back to their own countries by opening up the floodgates. And to have a ballot system—how ridiculous is that? They will go into a ballot system. What's the ballot system? What about their skills? Are you going to see if they actually have the skills before you put them into the ballot system so that they actually come here before they get the visa? What are their English skills? What are their other skills? Then you talk about all the problems, such as character, even for the whole family. Are you going to put the whole family through a character test? Are you going to put them through a health test to see if the family is able, or is it going to be a drain on the taxpayers? You've got a lot of questions. Australians are struggling to have that care that they need in our hospital system, housing and all the rest of it, but you're going to flood it with more people of lower economic circumstances. You're going to open up more floodgates, and the Australian people will suffer in the long run. 19:40 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I too rise to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific) Bill 2023. I'll start by saying that we on the government benches are proud of our strong, diverse, multicultural society. In this country, we're proud to always stand up for our multicultural communities, we're proud that we are stepping up our relationship with the Pacific and that that was a key commitment from this government, and we're proud that we're delivering on that commitment in spades—because our Pacific neighbours are family. We share a long history. We share common values and close cultural ties. We know that there is a strong Pacific diaspora here in Australia, and Pacific workers provide vital support to regional industry and the Australian economy. The Pacific Australia Labour Mobility, or PALM, scheme grows the relationship between Australia and Pacific nations. It allows thousands of Pacific workers to come to Australia to earn decent incomes and acquire new skills. The program is supported by unions and employers alike for having strong labour protections which significantly reduce the chances of exploitation that we know can unfortunately be so prevalent in temporary migration schemes. These workers provide vital support to our regional industries, both in farming and in our care economy, and in other settings as well. PALM allows Pacific and Timor-Leste workers to come to Australia for up to four years as temporary migrants. These workers provide crucial support to our economy, and the money that they send home supports their economies and their families. But the nature of the program means that many workers end up separated from their families for long periods of time. That's why we're starting a new family accompaniment program that allows workers on one-to-four-year placements to bring their immediate families to Australia. It will start with a trial of 200 families, ensuring that, while workers are contributing to Australia and upskilling, they're not also feeling the strain of being apart from those they love. Nai Misipeka's husband, John, is one of the around 40,000 Pacific nationals working in Australia under the PALM scheme. Nai lives in Fiji with their five children. John is working to send money home to the family, which mostly goes to putting food on the table. Nai says that the money is good, but the most important thing to them is their children. She wants the family to be able to go to Australia and be with John while he's working, to support him while he works for the next three years and then to return to Fiji afterwards. This pilot is about families like Nai and John's being together while participating in PALM. Last year, I had the opportunity to travel to Fiji with a cross-party delegation with an aim to better understand our place in the Pacific family. As part of that, I met with some of the amazing Fijian women who were training to work in aged care in Australia through the PALM scheme. They were training to work in regional Queensland, supporting the community and looking after our elders. This pilot is the first step towards workers like these being able to bring their families here—a step that can mean that, while they're here, caring for our loved ones, they can be supported by their loved ones too. We know allowing workers to bring their immediate families over means that we need to extend certain social benefits. This bill allows PALM workers in the pilot to access family tax benefits parts A and B and the childcare subsidy. This will help PALM workers with the costs of raising a family. Importantly, it will make it easier for their spouses to participate in the workforce, if they choose to, by accessing early learning. It's about ensuring that workers in this mutually beneficial scheme are supported by strong labour standards and have the opportunity to live and work here with their families by their sides. Doing this provides a reliable, skilled workforce for the agricultural and care sectors, which desperately need support. This bill also supports the government's new Pacific engagement visa, which allows up to 3,000 nationals of Pacific countries and Timor-Leste to come to Australia as permanent migrants each year. We know the success of this initiative will depend on a positive experience for these visa holders. That's why this bill will provide access to family benefits and support for education and training. These measures will provide Pacific engagement visa holders with the economic security they need to be able to thrive in Australia. We know that Pacific and Timor-Leste workers provide an absolutely invaluable contribution to our nation. While they are earning and learning key skills to take home, they are providing much-needed labour to fill shortages in our agricultural and care economies. That's why we are ensuring that they don't have to suffer painful separation from their families and that they have the appropriate social supports needed while they're here. We will proudly continue to support these workers, we'll proudly continue to step up our relationship, and we'll proudly stand side by side with the Pacific region. 19:46 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Senator Hanson has already outlined our party's response to this, so I won't go into that. I want to make it very clear that Pacific islanders, in my experience, are wonderful people. They're very friendly. Fiji is the friendliest country on Earth, so I'm told. We have many Pacific islanders in the south of Brisbane. I've come across them in the regions, like when I worked in Kalgoorlie. They're stars in the NRL. They're wonderful people. I've got no issue with the people of the Pacific islands. What I have got an issue with are the people in this chamber, not just those who are here now. The people in the Senate are largely responsible for destroying this country. I'm going to talk briefly on how. For five days last week and for a half a day today, we discussed a bill about sea dumping, all based on the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull. It's complete rubbish. In COVID, tens of thousands of people died needlessly to something that was supposedly based on the science. It's now coming out that the injections were not safe and not effective. We were told the science was there. What a lie. We are spending trillions of dollars in forgone income—heaven knows how much our children and grandchildren will spend and how many opportunities they will lose—on climate. I'll come to that in a minute. There's not one shred of evidence that has ever been given in this parliament. We talk about the environment. All kinds of things are done in the name of the environment, without any evidence: the Murray-Darling Basin, no evidence; the Coorong lakes in South Australia at the Murray mouth, no evidence. In fact, these are contradicting the evidence, and everyone here is asleep. This parliament stopped making decisions on data long ago, and now it actually contradicts the data, and no-one is awake enough to even care. Trillions of dollars being spent and contradictions of the actual real-world data characterise decisions made in this parliament, characterise policies made by the major parties in this parliament and characterise legislation. In my previous work as an engineer and as an executive, if we ignored the data, people died—they died—just like they did because of COVID injections. Science is often touted in this chamber as justification for various policies, yet it's never presented. Science is wonderful. It gave us objectivity. It gave us freedom from the days when, prior to science, the biggest muscle, the strongest financial warrior, the strongest religion prevailed. Then suddenly science emerged and gave us objectivity, and suddenly freedom emerged. Let me tell you briefly what science is. The first thing is that it relies on empirical, scientific data. It's based on objective data, objective observations. And no-one in this chamber does that on climate, COVID or the environment. But the data is not enough. When I first came into the chamber, back in 2016, I used that term, 'empirical data' and all the journalists and some of the politicians scurried off to find out what 'empirical' means. It means objective, measured data. But that by itself is not enough. It needs to be presented with a logical scientific framework that proves cause and effect. No-one has presented the logical scientific points that show that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be changed. We now have Pacific Islanders supported to come here on that basis. Yet it's never been done. A third part of science is that it's backed up with hard references, scientific references—and not just peer reviewed, because peer reviewed can be done by anyone, but actually based upon assessing the papers objectively. They're the three criteria: empirical scientific data, logical scientific points that prove cause and effect. With the whole climate scam, the climate fraud, no-one anywhere in the world has pointed out the specific quantified effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on any aspect of climate: not temperatures, not snowfall, not droughts, not storm frequency or severity or duration—nothing. There's not one shred of basis for policy, because that is the basis for policy. There's not one shred of evidence. I've even heard a list of scientists who are afraid of the climate—but no science. We even have a minister, who's sitting in the chair now, who I asked for evidence. She gave me 25-plus papers, and not one shred of evidence. Some of them even said there is no warming going on. It's amazing, yet she listed them as evidence. And we hear things like 'the science says', and not one person has distinguished themselves by characterising any of that above natural variability, as Senator Hanson said earlier today. Natural variability is cyclical, inherent, natural variation. That's all we see in the climate signal. And the Greens won't debate me. I first asked Senator Larissa Waters on Thursday 7 October 2010, at a public forum at New Farm, where we both shared the dais, along with three other people. I challenged her to a debate. She jumped to her feet faster than I have ever seen her move and said, 'I will not debate you!' She came up to me after the forum and said, 'I will not debate you.' I challenged her again, along with Mark Butler, Labor's climate spokesman at the time, on Tuesday 14 June 2016 at the Solar Council Forum, where I was not a participant, and I challenged him to a debate. Both ran from the challenge. Monday 9 September 2019 was the first day I challenged the Greens officially in the Senate—Senator Di Natale and Senator Larissa Waters. Never have they debated with me. They will not present the science. They won't treat the Senate with the respect of presenting empirical scientific data and logical scientific point—never; I'm still waiting. And why won't they debate? Because they know they haven't got the science. Yet we're now sending, thanks to the government, millions of dollars to the people of Tuvalu because their sea levels are rising, when the data shows that that is not happening anywhere near that extent, and it's all natural. One of the two biggest problems we have in this country is shoddy governance, driven by a lack of data and a lack of objectivity, reinforced by denial. The second thing is ceding our sovereignty. That doesn't apply in this debate, but we are ceding the future of our children and the future of our country by not using objective empirical scientific data within logical scientific points. 19:54 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I thank senators for participating in this debate on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific) Bill 2023 and I would like to offer some concluding remarks. This bill will establish legislative power to extend a range of government supports and benefits to Pacific engagement visa holders and eligible Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme families. The bill will provide immediate access for Pacific engagement visa holders to higher education and VET student loans, financial supports while studying and training, and family tax benefit part A. It will also extend access to family tax benefits and childcare subsidy for families participating in family accompaniment under the PALM scheme. This bill reflects Australia's special relationship with the Pacific and Timor-Leste. The Albanese government has said before that Australia's central message to the Pacific is that we are here to listen. We are here to work together and we are here make a difference, and this bill puts those words into action. The measures contained in the bill extend support and benefits to Pacific engagement visa holders so participants will have the opportunity not just to settle in Australia but to pursue education opportunities and to thrive in their new communities. The new Pacific engagement visa is designed to grow the Pacific and Timor-Leste diaspora in Australia with ongoing connections to their home country, deepening our ties in the region. The bill also delivers on the government's commitment to expand and improve the PALM scheme by introducing family accompaniment beginning with a pilot of 200 families. Workers under the PALM scheme provide essential support to Australia's economy and it is often in critical sectors including in aged care and agriculture. But to do so, many leave their families behind for months or for years. The PALM scheme family accompaniment will permit workers on one- to four-year placements to bring their immediate family to Australia with the support of their employer. This bill means that PALM scheme workers participating in family accompaniment will be able to access benefits to support them with the costs of raising a family. It will enable full participation of spouses in the workforce if they choose to do so. It recognises the invaluable contribution that people from the Pacific and Timor-Leste make to Australia, and it addresses the underrepresentation of some of Australia's closest neighbours and partners in our migration program. It brings to the fore the importance that Australia places on our relationships with the countries of this region and upholds our commitment to strengthening ties with the Pacific family. I would like to address some of the contributions senators have made to the debate. The opposition's position on this bill is disappointing. It is disappointing because it shows they are not serious when they say they value Australia's relationship with the Pacific. It shows they are prepared to play politics with Australian migration policy and Australian foreign policy, and it shows that the party which so mismanaged Australia's important Pacific relationships when it was last in office has learnt nothing from those mistakes. Senator Duniam gave a short speech, most of which had nothing to do with his bill or indeed with Pacific migration or Australia's Pacific relationships. The opposition more generally has misrepresented the Pacific engagement visa and misrepresented the role of the ballot in selecting people to apply for Pacific engagement visas. We dealt with the role of the Pacific engagement ballot in the Senate last month when we debated the Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023. Given the inaccurate portrayal presented by Senator Duniam in his remarks, let me explain again how the Pacific engagement visa will work. Each year up to 3,000 Pacific engagement visas will be available. There will be a two-stage process in applying for the new visas. In the first stage, interested persons will register in a ballot. In the second stage applicants who were randomly selected in the ballot will be invited to apply for a Pacific engagement visa. Those invited to apply will then need to meet a range of requirements in order to be granted a visa. These requirements include having a formal job offer with an employer in Australia, being aged between 18 and 45, meeting English-language requirements, and meeting standard migration health and character requirements. So it is wrong for the opposition to claim that, under the Pacific engagement visa, Australian citizenship will be awarded by ballot. This is not true, and senators opposite know that it is not true. The ballot will not grant a visa or citizenship. Being selected by the ballot allows people to apply for the visa, and whether applicants are then awarded a visa is determined by whether they meet the eligibility criteria, not by ballot. Grants of Australian citizenship will not be determined by the Pacific engagement visa ballot but by existing citizenship processes. Debate interrupted. Senate adjourned at 20:00